Preamble

The House met at a Quarter before Three of the Clock Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.

Provisional Order Bills (No Standing Orders applicable).

Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That in the case of the following Bill, referred on the First Reading thereof, no Standing Orders are applicable, namely:

Sea Fisheries Provisional Order Bill.

Bill to be read a Second time To-morrow.

Oral Answers to Questions — UNEMPLOYMENT.

GERMAN WORKERS (PERMITS).

Mr. DAY: 1.
asked the Minister of Labour whether she can state the number of German workers who have been granted permits by her Department to land in Great Britain since 1925 who are still in employment in this country and the trades or occupations they are engaged in; and whether there are any special regulations governing the time that these permits are granted for?

The MINISTER of LABOUR (Miss Bondfield): I regret that I should not feel justified in undertaking the very considerable labour that would be involved in extracting the information asked for in the first part of the question. A permit, if issued, is generally for a limited period from one week up to 12 months, the actual period depending upon the purpose for which it is required. Extensions of the original permit may be granted where this course is deemed to be justified, but the number of aliens who remain in employment here for longer than 12 months is small relative to the total numbers who are granted
permits. For a more detailed account of the procedure regulating the entry of foreigners for employment in Great Britain, I would refer my hon. Friend to Command Paper, 3318 issued last year by my predecessor.

Mr. DAY: Will my right hon. Friend say, in view of the figures which she has given in this House recently showing the number of Germans who have received permits since 1925, and in view of the large unemployment which we have in this country, if British workmen cannot be found to take their places?

Miss BONDFIELD: No, Sir.

EXCHANGES (SERVICE ENLISTMENT).

Major GLYN: 2.
asked the Minister of Labour what facilities exist at Employment Exchanges to give young men all possible information and assistance in enlisting in either the Army, Navy, or Air Force?

Miss BONDFIELD: Employment Exchanges are authorised to give, on request, information with regard to conditions of enlistment in His Majesty's Forces, including the name and address of the nearest recruiting office.

Major GLYN: Have any communications passed between the War Office and the Ministry of Labour, with a view to improving these facilities since the Debate in this House?

Miss BONDFIELD: I see no necessity for improvement.

Captain Sir WILLIAM BRASS: Are we to understand from the right hon. Lady's reply that these details are only given on request?

Miss BONDFIELD: Quite.

Sir ASSHETON POWNALL: Would it not be possible for the details to be put up at the Employment Exchanges and at the Post Offices and elsewhere?

Miss BONDFIELD: They are. Certain posters are, in fact, put up now.

STATISTICS.

Major GLYN: 3.
asked the Minister of Labour whether, seeing that each person registered at the Employment Exchanges has to state the trade or occupation he
or she follows, she will state whether this information is tabulated in some way in order that there can be deductions drawn regarding the state of trade in various parts of the country; and whether she will reconsider the question of the advantages of dividing registered unemployed into various general categories, e.g., production, distribution, and clerical occupations?

Miss BONDFIELD: Statistics of unemployment in Great Britain are already compiled and published each month in the Ministry of Labour Gazette so as to show the state of employment in each of 100 industry groups. This grouping, into which industries fall more or less naturally, does not readily lend itself to a division under such headings as production, distribution and clerical occupations, since almost every industrial group includes to some extent two or more of these operations. If the hon. and gallant Member wishes I shall be glad to discuss the matter further with him.

Major COLVILLE: 5.
asked the Minister of Labour at what date the unemployment figures last stood at their present level?

Miss BONDFIELD: 12th July, 1926.

Sir ARTHUR STEEL-MAITLAND: 14.
asked the Minister of Labour what are the numbers of living insured persons whose books are on the two-months' file, the dead file, and at Kew, respectively, at the latest date available; and how many of each it is estimated will now receive benefit through changes in administration or in the law?

Miss BONDFIELD: At 24th March, 1930, there were 65,119 books of insured persons in the two months' file and 336,289 in the dead files at Employment Exchanges in Great Britain. These totals may include a certain number of books of deceased contributors whose deaths had not been reported to the Department. Figures are not available regarding the number of books at Kew. On the basis of the reductions in these files consequent on administration changes and on the operation of the Unemployment Insurance Act, 1930, it is estimated that between 65,000 and 70,000 persons whose books were previously in the files in question
had been added to the live register at 24th March, but I am unable to say how many will receive benefit.

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: Will the Minister tell us whether she thinks that this is the final figure, or Whether there are any further people who are likely to come upon the live register as a result of recent changes?

Miss BONDFIELD: I certainly should not like to say that this is the final figure.

Lieut. - Colonel Sir A. LAMBERTWARD: Are we to understand from the Minister's reply that those persons whose books are on the dead file did not bother to keep in touch with the Employment Exchanges as long as it was only a question of obtaining work but now that they believe they can get unemployment benefit, they have signed afresh.[Interruption.]

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: May we be informed as to how the Minister arrives at the figure of 200,000 which was mentioned in the White Paper, as the number of persons who might possibly be affected by the provisions of the Bill, subject to a certain number who would be disqualified in any case?

Miss BONDFIELD: I must have notice of that question.

Major CARVER: 19.
asked the Minister of Labour the total number of unemployed registered at the Employment Exchanges in the Howdenshire Parliamentary area now and at the end of last June, respectively?

Mr. LOUIS SMITH: 23.
asked the Minister of Labour the total number of unemployed registered at the Employment Exchanges in the Sheffield Parliamentary areas now and at the end of last June, respectively?

Brigadier-General MAKINS: 24.
asked the Minister of Labour the total number of unemployed registered at the Employment Exchanges in the Knutsford Parliamentary area now and at the end of last June, respectively?

Lieut.-Colonel MOORE: 25.
asked the Minister of Labour the total number of unemployed registered at the Employment Exchanges in the Ayr burghs Parliamentary area now and at the end of last June, respectively?

Miss BONDFIELD: I am obtaining the figures asked for in these questions, and will circulate them in the OFFICIAL REPORT. I should point out that they will consist of the numbers on the registers at the Exchanges in the Parliamentary areas specified, and these numbers will not necessarily be identical with the numbers of registered persons resident in those areas.

BENEFIT (YOUNG MEN).

Major LEIGHTON: 6.
asked the Minister of Labour the number of young men between the ages of 18 and 21 who are drawing unemployment pay?

Miss BONDFIELD: At 24th March, 1930, there were 82,627 young men, aged 18 to 20, on the registers of Employment Exchanges in Great Britain whose claims to unemployment benefit had been admitted or were under consideration. I am unable to say how many of these were actually in receipt of benefit.

Major LEIGHTON: Have any of these young men been offered service in the Army? [Interruption.]

EXCHANGE ACCOMMODATION, LIVERPOOL

Mr. GRAHAM WHITE: 7.
asked the Minister of Labour if, when authorising the construction of the new Employment Exchange in the Everton district of Liverpool, she will arrange for the provision of adequate sanitary accommodation and covered waiting rooms?

Miss BONDFIELD: I would refer the hon. Member to the reply which I gave him on the 13th March in which I pointed out that the provision of sanitary accommodation is a matter for the local authority. The desirability of outside shelters is under consideration.

NORTH WALSHAM, NORFOLK.

Viscount ELMLEY: 10.
asked the Minister of Labour the number of unemployed people registered at the North Walsham, Norfolk, branch Employment Exchange at the latest convenient date, and similar figures on the same date in 1929?

Miss BONDFIELD: At 24th March, 1930, there were 184 persons on the registers of the North Walsham Employment Exchange, as compared with 103 at 25th March, 1929.

DOMESTIC SERVICE.

Mr. MANDER: 13.
asked the Minister of Labour what steps have been taken to carry out the report of the Committee on Domestic Service of 1923, in respect of setting up special sub-committees by local employment committees attached to Employment Exchanges to consider the problems connected with domestic work and to endeavour to form local associations of employers and employés to agree upon conditions in their area?

Miss BONDFIELD: This recommendation was carefully considered at the time. It appeared to involve the assumption by the Department of authority to regulate the wages and conditions in this employment and it was decided that in the absence of statutory authority for departmental action, the matter was one that should be dealt with unofficially. I may mention that subject to this restriction it is within the scope of women's subcommittees of local employment committees to consider questions affecting domestic service.

Mr. MANDER: Have any of the local employment committees actually carried out work on these lines?

Miss BONDFIELD: Quite a number of the committees I have mentioned are dealing with these questions.

TRAINING PERIOD (BENEFIT).

Sir W. BRASS: 15.
asked the Minister of Labour whether she is aware that under the new Unemployment Insurance Act a man training for work without any remuneration whatsoever is debarred from receiving unemployment benefit; and whether, in view of the discouragement which this affords to those genuinely anxious to find employment, she will consider an Amendment to the Act in question?

Miss BONDFIELD: The right to draw benefit during a period of training depends on the circumstances of the particular case, and especially on whether the training is being given by a prospective employer. The law on this subject was not altered by the recent Act, and I cannot undertake to introduce fresh legislation with regard to it at present.

Sir W. BRASS: Do I understand from the Minister's reply that if training is given by a prospective employer—for
instance, if a weaver wishes to be trained as an omnibus conductor without any remuneration—then in such a case the man is debarred from getting any benefit, as a result?

Miss BONDFIELD: That is the position. The alternative is that of treating the Fund as a subsidy of wages.

Lieut. - Colonel Sir FREDERICK HALL: Are we to understand then that the man who tries—the man who goes into training in order that he may earn his own living—is to be handicapped, and is to get nothing, while the man who sits at home and does no work gets paid for it?

Miss BONDFIELD: The hon. and gallant Member appears to forget entirely that he is referring to a system which was in practice under the Administration of which he was a supporter.

Sir F. HALL: On a point of Order. Are you aware, Sir, that whenever we bring forward questions of this kind, we are always referred to what happened under the last Government, instead of being given a reply; and are we to take it that the present Government are proceeding on the same lines as the last Government, and are therefore satisfied with what the last Government did?

Mr. SPEAKER: No point of Order arises.

BENEFIT CLAIMS.

Mr. RAMSBOTHAM: 17.
asked the Minister of Labour if she has received any complaints from the managers of Employment Exchanges with regard to the difficulties of administering the new Unemployment Insurance Act, especially with regard to the question of proof that the claimants for benefit are doing their utmost to take up employment which may be offered to them?

Miss BONDFIELD: The answer is in the negative.

CASUAL OCCUPATIONS (INSURANCE).

Mr. GRAHAM WHITE: 18.
asked the Minister of Labour if she will state those insurable occupations which are now classified as casual?

Miss BONDFIELD: The only connection in which the term "casual" is used
in the official statistics is for the purpose of distinguishing the group of unemployed persons "normally engaged in casual employment." This category includes persons who usually seek a livelihood by means of separate jobs of short duration, and principally covers unemployed dock labourers, but may also include individuals in a large number of other occupations.

INSURANCE ACTS (SUMMARY).

Mr. TOM SMITH: 20.
asked the Minister of Labour whether, in view of the number of Acts in force on the subject of unemployment insurance and the changes made by the Act of 1930, she will consider issuing an up-to-date summary of the Acts?

Miss BONDFIELD: A summary of the Unemployment Insurance Acts has been prepared and is being issued as a Stationery Office publication. Hon. Members desiring copies may obtain them by making application in the usual manner.

WOOL TEXTILE INDUSTRY (DISPUTE).

Sir KINGSLEY WOOD: 11.
asked the Minister of Labour whether she can make a statement as to the present position of the wool textile industry; and whether effect is now to be given to the recommendations contained in Lord Macmillan's Report?

Mr. WISE: 12.
asked the Minister of Labour what action her Department has taken and proposes to take to avert the threatened stoppage in the Yorkshire textile industry?

Captain PETER MACDONALD: 22.
asked the Minister of Labour whether she proposes to take any action with a view to effecting a settlement in the dispute now proceeding in the woollen industry?

Mr. BENRILEY: 27.
asked the Minister of Labour whether she is aware that the employers in the woollen and worsted industries in the West Riding of Yorkshire have posted notices in their factories this week giving a week's notice to their operatives of a general reduction in wages; that these notices affect some 200,000 operatives; that the operatives' unions have issued instructions to their
members to cease work on the termination of the notices; and whether, in view of the pending situation in the woollen industry, she has under consideration any action with a view to inviting the parties to the dispute to postpone the notices?

Miss BONDFIELD: As hon. Members are aware, efforts to reach a settlement of this dispute by agreement or by reference to arbitration had previously failed. With the agreement of both sides of the Joint Industrial Council for the industry I appointed a Court of Inquiry in January under Part II of the Industrial Courts Act, and the report of this Inquiry was recently published. I do not think I ought to make any comment on the present position beyond expressing my hope that a general dislocation in this important industry may yet be avoided.

Mr. LEACH: Is the Minister aware of the fact that the employers have refused arbitration all along?

Mr. SPEAKER: The right hon. Lady has said that she prefers not to make any further statement on the subject.

"CHOICE OF CAREER" PAMPHLETS (FIGHTING SERVICES).

Sir NICHOLAS GRATTANDOYLE: 21.
asked the Minister of Labour whether it is intended to include in the series of pamphlets under the title of the Choice of Career Series, which are issued by the Ministry in collaboration with the Incorporated Associations of Headmaster's and Headmistresses of Public Secondary Schools, one dealing with the prospects of a career in the Navy, Army and Air Force; and, if not, whether she can state why attention is not to be drawn in these pamphlets to the prospects in these Services?

Miss BONDFIELD: Certain additions to this series of pamphlets are under consideration, including that suggested by the hon. Member.

ARCOS, LIMITED (DISCHARGED EMPLOYES).

Mr. SMITHERS: 28.
asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he can now give the House the
result of his inquiries as to whether any of the discharged employés of Arcos, Limited, being Russian subjects, are still upon the British labour market?

The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. Clynes): Inquiries are in progress, but I regret I am not yet in a position to furnish a reply to the hon. Member's question.

Mr. SMITHERS: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that I have put this question down two or three times, at intervals of a week or a fortnight, and when can he give us any hope that some answer will be given?

Mr. CLYNES: I can only tell my hon. Friend that both of us are persevering to get the information.

GUARDIANSHIP OF INFANTS ACT.

Colonel HOWARD-BURY: 29.
asked the Home Secretary whether he is aware that under the Guardianship of Infants Act, 1925, a man is compelled to contribute until the infant reaches 21 years; and whether, seeing that the same infant can draw unemployment insurance benefit at 15 years of age, he will take steps to amend the former Act?

Mr. CLYNES: I am aware that a Court may under this Act order the father to contribute towards the maintenance of an infant, of which the custody has been granted to the mother, until the infant attains 21 years of age. The Court is, however, under no obligation to do so, and an order for maintenance can be varied or discharged by the Court at any time. The Act gives discretion to the Court, and no amendment appears desirable.

LEAD PAINT REGULATION (PROSECUTIONS).

Mr. McKINLAY: 30.
asked the Home Secretary the number of prosecutions arising out of the evasion of the Lead Paint Regulation?

Mr. CLYNES: These Regulations came into force on the 1st October, 1927, and no prosecutions were taken in that year. During 1928 and 1929 and the first three months of 1930 proceedings were taken in respect of 33 contraventions and convictions obtained in 31 cases.

Oral Answers to Questions — GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS.

FACTORY INSPECTORS (LONDON).

Mr. MILLS: 31.
asked the Home Secretary the number of factory inspectors in the County of London area for the years ending 31st December, 1920, and 31st December, 1930, respectively; and whether the Erith or Bexley Heath area is included in the above total?

Mr. CLYNES: The authorised strength of the inspecting staff attached to London districts was 28 in 1920. It is now fixed at 38. These figures do not include the divisional staff which numbered five in 1920 and now numbers six. Erith and Bexley Heath were outside the London area in 1920, but are now included.

SICK LEAVE.

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: 90.
asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury what are the rules governing sick leave with pay applicable to the Civil Service generally and to industrial employés of the Government on the other hand?

The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Pethick-Lawrence): In the case of established civil servants generally, pay during sick leave is granted under Treasury Regulations, dated 6th June, 1929, made under Article 6 of the Order in Council of 22nd July, 1920; and, in the case of certain unestablished and temporary employés, under the terms of a Treasury memorandum dated 24th April, 1925. Industrial employés are not eligible for sick leave with pay, but are covered by the National Health Insurance Acts, the Government in their case paying both the State and the employers' contributions. I am sending the hon. Member a copy of the documents referred to in my answer.

BUILDING SOOIETIES (FIRE INSURANCE).

Lieut.-Colonel FREMANTLE: 32.
asked the Home Secretary if he will take steps to ensure that in the case of building societies carrying all or part of the fire risks in respect of properties in mortgage to them, the extent of the risks covered, and the amount of premiums received, are clearly shown in the accounts of the societies?

Mr. CLYNES: I am advised by the Chief Registrar of Friendly Societies that the extent of the risks covered is not an item which could appear in the accounts. As regards premiums, he will consider whether any steps can be taken to have them shown separately in the accounts where this is not already done.

BETTING, SWEEPSTAKES AND LOTTERIES

Sir BASIL PETO: 33.
asked the Home Secretary whether his attention has been called to the advertisements of the Guardian Pari-Mutuel Company, Limited, offering to act as agents for the collection of bets for transmission to the totalisators operated on racecourses by the Betting Control Board under the Racecourse Betting Act; and whether he proposes to take any action under the existing law to confine the facilities for betting with totalisators to the racecourses as provided by the Act?

Mr. CLYNES: The hon. Baronet has been good enough to forward to me a copy of the advertisement referred to. The Board receives the bets on approved racecourses only, and is advised that the arrangement is in order.

Sir B. PETO: Has the right hon. Gentleman noted that the pamphlet referred to has on the outside cover, "Away betting on the racecourse Tote"; and, though it invites the enrolment of members, there is no financial obligation implied, and that, in fact, this organisation is carrying on betting away from the racecourses, contrary to the Act of Parliament legalising the, totalisator?

Mr. CLYNES: I accept the comment as well grounded. I do not approve the course that has been taken; I am merely explaining what the law is.

Mr. FOOT: 34.
asked the Home Secretary if he is aware of the practice of certain bookmakers of circularising persons to enter into betting transactions and offering as an inducement to open credit accounts; and whether he will consider the advisability of introducing legislation to prevent the issue of such circulars?

Mr. CLYNES: I am aware of the practice; I can only say concerning all such
matters that, while proposals for legislation are of course always considered, I cannot promise to introduce legislation with the object of disturbing the existing position one way or another.

Mr. FOOT: 35.
asked the Home Secretary if he will consider the advisability of setting up a Select Committee to consider the condition of the existing law in relation to betting, sweepstakes, and lotteries?

Mr. CLYNES: As at present advised, I do not think the course suggested is necessary.

Mr. FOOT: In view of the very difficult and chaotic condition of the law, will the right hon. Gentleman be prepared to consider setting up a Select Committee, if representations are made from all opinions in this House?

Mr. CLYNES: I shall, of course, fittingly consider representations of that kind.

Captain P. MACDONALD: 39.
asked the Home Secretary whether it is his intention to take steps to prevent the traffic in tickets in foreign lotteries, either by stopping circulars respecting such lotteries in transmission through the post, or by intercepting letters and remittances directed to the persons from whom the circulars emanated?

Mr. CLYNES: The Departments concerned do all that is possible to stop foreign lottery circulars in the post.

WORKERS' HEALTH (COMMITTEES.)

Mr. TOWNEND: 37.
asked the Home Secretary if he will furnish a list of advisory or other committees which have been set up by the Home Office, in connection with matters affecting the health of work-people arising out of their employment, since the commencement of the year 1927?

Mr. CLYNES: The Departmental Committees appointed on the following subjects appear to come within the limits indicated in the question: (1) Dust in Cotton Card Rooms; (2) Compensation for and Prevention of Silicosis in the Pottery Industry; (3) Medical Arrangements for Diagnosis of Silicosis; and (4) Working of the Shops (Early Closing) Acts.

Major COLFOX: Will it be possible for the right hon. Gentleman to give a complete list of all the Committees and Commissions which have been set up by the Government in the last few months?

Mr. CLYNES: I have given a complete list of all the Committees and Commissions set up in reference to the specific point of the question.

INDUSTRIAL DISEASES (SILICOSIS).

Mr. TOWNEND: 38.
asked the Home Secretary in how many of the 423 cases in which compensation has been paid under the Refractories Industries (Silicosis) Scheme, between 1st February, 1919, and 31st December, 1928, the workman had not been employed in the industry or in receipt of weekly payments under the scheme at any time within three years previous to disablement or death?

Mr. CLYNES: It would appear from information supplied by the Refractories Industries Compensation Fund. that there were five such cases.

DEPORTEES (RE-ENTRY).

Colonel HOWARD-BURY: 40.
asked the Home Secretary whether his attention has been drawn to the entry into this country by means of week-end tickets from the Continent of share-pushers who have already been deported from this country; and what steps he is taking to prevent the entry of such persons by means of week-end tickets?

Mr. CLYNES: Yes, Sir, and in four eases recently the aliens have been subsequently identified and convicted of landing without permission. Arrangements are being made for their early deportation. As I stated in reply to a question by the hon. and gallant Member on the 20th February, the utmost vigilance is exercised by the officers at the ports to secure that the facilities granted to excursionists are not abused. It would not be desirable to disclose the nature of the measures which are taken in this respect.

Colonel HOWARD-BURY: Is there anything to prevent these four when they
are deported, coming back again on weekend tickets; and cannot the right hon. Gentleman take some steps to tighten up the regulations?

Mr. CLYNES: Yes, probably the vigilance of the inspection will prevent their returning, in addition to their own bitter experience.

Colonel HOWARD-BURY: How if they come in by another port on a week-end ticket; how can they prevent it?

Oral Answers to Questions — EDUCATION.

SIZE OF CLASSES.

Mr. DAY: 41.
asked the President of the Board of Education the number of classes at present at the elementary schools containing over 60 pupils?

The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of EDUCATION (Sir Charles Trevelyan): There were 85 classes containing over 60 pupils on the 31st March, 1929, the latest date for which figures are available. My hon. Friend will realise that these figures relate to a particular day of the year on which, owing to the temporary absence of a teacher or other special causes, the conditions may, for the moment, be abnormal. In only two areas were there more than four such classes and in both of these a special problem exists owing to the rapid development of housing estates.

Mr. DAY: Can my hon. Friend say what the normal position is?

Mr. SANDHAM: Were these pupils all drawn from members of the working classes?

TEACHERS (TRAINING).

Mr. EDE: 42.
asked the President of the Board of Education how many intending teachers in the three latest years for which statistics are available undertook a post-graduate training; and will he state how many teachers recognised for the first time in secondary schools during the last year for which statistics are available had not undergone a training course?

Sir C. TREVELYAN: The number of intending teachers who have undertaken
a course of post-graduate training under the Board's regulations in the past three years is:


1927–28
…
…
…
…
1,704


1928–29
…
…
…
…
1,746


1929–30
…
…
…
…
1,867


1,339 teachers took up appointments in secondary schools as new entrants to the teaching profession during the year 1928–29, of which 645 are known to have undergone a course of training. The balance includes a number of teachers of special subjects in respect of whose training particulars are not available, although it is known that many of them had been trained.

Mr. EDE: 44.
asked the President of the Board of Education how many students in training colleges have undertaken a third year of training in the training college years, commencing in the autumns of 1927, 1928 and 1929; and is it his policy to encourage suitable students to undertake a third year?

Sir C. TREVELYAN: The numbers of students who began a third year of training during the academic years beginning 1st August, 1927, 1928 and 1929, respectively, were 472, 421 and 467. I am sending my hon. Friend a copy of the circular letter of the 28th December last which explained the conditions under which proposals for third year courses would be sympathetically considered.

SUPPLEMENTARY TEACHERS (SUPERANNUATION).

Mr. EDE: 43.
asked the President of the Board of Education if any local education authority has included its supplementary teachers in its superannuation scheme under the Local Government Officers' Superannuation Act; and, if so, if the authority's contribution to the superannuation fund ranks for grant?

Sir C. TREVELYAN: I have no information which would enable me to say whether any local education authorities provide for the superannuation of supplementary teachers under the Local Government Officers' Superannuation Act. Any expenditure so incurred by the authorities would not rank for grant by the Board.

LANGUAGES (SPANISH AND PORTUGUESE).

Dr. VERNON DAVIES: 47.
asked the President of the Board of Education if,
in view of the importance of South America to our trade and industry, he is prepared to do all in his power to stimulate the study of Spanish and Portuguese in our schools?

Sir C. TREVELYAN: I fully appreciate the commercial and industrial importance of the Spanish and Portuguese languages, and I shall take every opportunity of encouraging their study in schools of appropriate types. The matter is being carefully considered by the Committee on Education for Salesmanship in connection with their inquiry into the subject of modern languages, and I expect to obtain valuable assistance from their conclusions and recommendations.

Dr. DAVIES: Will the right hon. Gentleman issue instructions to education authorities stressing the fact that at the present time the Spanish language, particularly, is of more importance than French?

Captain GUNSTON: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman if he can inform the House whether many Members of the Liberal party take lessons?

MAINTENANCE ALLOWANCES.

Mr. MANDER: 48.
asked the President of the Board of Education if he is prepared, in connection with the proposed maintenance grants for school children between 14 and 15, to extend the scheme to those children who remain voluntarily at school beyond 15?

Sir C. TREVELYAN: The maintenance allowances authorised by the Education (School Attendance) Bill are restricted to children from the age of 14 up to the age when they cease to be compelled to attend school. But the Bill does not interfere with the existing powers of local education authorities to award scholarships or bursaries, including maintenance allowances, to older children.

Dr. DAVIES: 50.
asked the President of the Board of Education how many times the advisory committee on school maintenance grants has met; where are the meetings held; and have the members of the committee been informed that the Board of Education do not propose to pay them their out-of-pocket expenses for attending such meetings?

Sir C. TREVELYAN: The Committee on Maintenance Allowances has held four meetings and is to meet again to-morrow. The meetings have been held at the office of the Board of Education. The answer to the last part of the question is in the negative.

Dr. DAVIES: Had the Minister any idea that these gentlemen are not to receive any out-of-pocket expenses for the services that they are giving?

Sir C. TREVELYAN: I am sure the hon. Member has enabled them to know it.

DOMESTIC SCIENCE.

Mr. MANDER: 49.
asked the President of the Board of Education what steps have been taken to carry out the Report of the Ministry of Labour Committee on Domestic Service in 1923, in respect of Recommendation No. 76, that training in domestic science should be a regular feature of instruction in all elementary, central, and secondary schools, and that open examinations, with certificates of proficiency, should be established?

Major COLFOX: On a point of Order. Can an hon. Member expect an answer to a question which he has asked without rising from his seat?

Mr. SPEAKER: It would be better if hon. Members did rise.

Mr. MANDER: I did rise from my seat.

Sir C. TREVELYAN: Instruction in domestic science is regarded as a normal part of the curriculum for girls in secondary schools and for older girls in central and other elementary schools. Opportunities for this work are being continually increased as part of the general improvement in school buildings and organisation. Domestic science is included as one of the optional subjects in the syllabus of the school certificate examinations taken by pupils in secondary schools, but it was not thought desirable for the Board to set up any special examination in this subject.

STAFFING (RETIRED TEACHERS).

Dr. DAVIES: 51.
asked the President of the Board of Education if any steps have been taken to invite retired teachers to come to the assistance of the local
education authorities when the school age is raised; if so, what has been the response; and is he satisfied that he will be able to avoid overcrowding of classes and understaffing of teachers by 1st April, 1931?

Sir C. TREVELYAN: The re-employment of retired teachers or the retention in service of teachers who would otherwise retire is a matter for the local authorities, and it would be premature to ask them for any reports on the subject. In reply to the last part of the question, I consider that reasonable provision can be made for the additional children who will be retained in the schools as a result of the raising of the leaving age as from 1st April, 1931.

Dr. DAVIES: Will the right hon. Gentleman explain to the House what he means by "reasonable provision"?

TEACHERS' PENSIONS.

Mr. HARRIS: 52.
asked the President of the Board of Education why teachers who undertook, at the request of the Government, the training of disabled ex-service men from 1920 to 1921 under the Ministry of Labour have had those two years deducted from their period of service under the superannuation scheme?

Sir C. TREVELYAN: Under the Teachers (Superannuation) Acts pensionable service since 1919 is limited to service rendered in schools aided by grant from the Board of Education, and accordingly the service, to which the hon. Members refers, cannot be treated as ranking for pension, unless the training in question formed part of the work of a grant-aided school.

Mr. HARRIS: Is it not most unfair that men who gave their services to help the State should be deprived of superannuation which they would otherwise have had if they had remained at their ordinary work?

Sir C. TREVELYAN: That is the condition of the law at present.

Sir F. HALL: If they had been conscientious objectors I suppose they would be—

HON. MEMBERS: Orders!

TEACHERS' SALARIES.

Mr. WEST: 53.
asked the President, of the Board of Education whether he is aware that certain local education authorities are employing certificated teachers in posts that would normally be filled by uncertificated teachers, and that the certificated teachers so employed are being remunerated at the rates laid down in the Burnham scales for uncertificated teachers; can he state how many teachers are so employed; and whether he will take steps to prevent such a practice?

Sir C. TREVELYAN: I understand that for personal reasons individual certificated teachers from time to time voluntarily seek posts that have been advertised as posts for uncertificated teachers and as being remunerated accordingly. I have no information as to the number so employed, but I have no reason to think that there are any sufficient grounds for my intervention.

NON-PROVIDED SCHOOLS.

Sir N. GRATTAN-DOYLE: 54.
asked the President of the Board of Education what progress has been made with the conversations respecting the provision of non-provided schools and the raising of the school age; and whether he can say when he hopes to be in a position to make a statement on the subject?

Captain CROOKSHANK: 56.
asked the President of the Board of Education if he can make a statement regarding any negotiations on the subject of raising the school-leaving age which he is holding with either the Church of England or the Roman Catholic authorities?

Sir C. TREVELYAN: With the hon Members' permission, I will answer these questions together. Conversations on this subject are still taking place, and I cannot at the moment say when I shall be able to make any announcement.

Sir N. GRATTAN-DOYLE: Can the right hon. Gentleman give some indication of when he will be able to do so.

HON. MEMBERS: Certainly not!

Sir C. TREVELYAN: I can assure my hon. Friend that nobody is more anxious that I am to be able to take the House into my confidence.

TEACHERS (UNEMPLOYMENT).

Sir N. GRATTAN-DOYLE: 55.
asked the President of the Board of Education whether he can state the number of uncertificated teachers, men and women, now in employment and the number of certificated teachers who are without educational posts?

Sir C. TREVELYAN: 31,943 uncertificated teachers were in employment on the 31st March, 1929, the latest date for which figures are available. I regret that I have no information as to the number of unemployed certificated teachers.

Sir N. GRATTAN-DOYLE: Could not the right hon. Gentleman find out?

Sir C. TREVELYAN: It is impossible to find out.

SCHOOL-LEAVING AGE.

Captain CROOKSHANK: 57.
asked the President of the Board of Education how many resolutions for and against the raising of the school-leaving age he has received from parish councils and district councils in the rural areas?

Sir C. TREVELYAN: I have received no resolutions from parish or rural district councils in favour of the raising of the school-leaving age, and one resolution against it.

Captain CROOKSHANK: Does the right hon. Gentleman not remember that last week he said that he was getting a proportion of 30 to one resolutions in favour of this question?

Sir C. TREVELYAN: What I said on that occasion was in reply to a much more general question put to me by the hon. Member with regard to the number of resolutions for and against the Bill. On that occasion, I very much under stated the number of resolutions in favour of the Bill.

TARIFF TRUCE.

Commander BELLAIRS: 45.
asked the Prime Minister whether it is proposed to bring the Tariff Truce Protocol before the House for discussion and ratification by Parliament?

The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Ramsay MacDonald): I would refer the hon. and gallant Member to the notice given by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for
West Birmingham (Sir A. Chamberlain) on Tuesday last on this subject.

Mr. MARJORIBANKS: Will the right hon. Gentleman say how long this Protocol is going to commit British industry to a suicidal policy?

LEAGUE OF NATIONS COVENANT (BRITISH OBLIGATIONS).

Major ROSS: 46.
asked the Prime Minister whether he will undertake that our existing obligations under the Covenant of the League of Nations are not increased in any way at the next meeting of the League as a result of any arrangement come to at the Naval Conference?

The PRIME MINISTER: I would refer the hon. and gallant Member to the answers given to questions by my right hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Colonel Wedgwood) and the hon. Members for Maidstone (Commander Bellairs) and Devon-port (Mr. Hore-Belisha) on Monday last, and to the hon. and gallant Member for Warwick and Leamington (Captain Eden), yesterday, to which replies I have nothing to add.

Major ROSS: May I ask whether those answers refer at all to any contemplated change—

HON. MEMBERS: Read them!

Major ROSS: I have read them.

HON. MEMBERS: Order!

Colonel WEDGWOOD: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether the information that is in the Press might not also be given to this House. I mean the information in connection with the interpretations. I want to know whether the interpretations are not, in effect, modifications of the Covenant, and as binding on us in honour as the Covenant itself?

The PRIME MINISTER: I have given no information whatever to the Press, and I hope that hon. and right hon. Gentlemen will not attribute to me anything that appeared there.

Mr. SMITHERS: Arising out of that—

Mr. SPEAKER: Nothing can arise out of that.

Oral Answers to Questions — HOUSING.

SOUTHWARK.

Mr. DAY: 58.
asked the Minister of Health whether the Southwark Borough Council have built any houses under the Housing Acts of 1919, 1923 and 1924; whether he is aware of the hardship created by the number of families living in overcrowded conditions in this borough; and whether any new schemes for the relief of this congestion is under consideration?

The MINISTER of HEALTH (Mr. Arthur Greenwood): The answer to the first part of the question is in the negative. As my hon. Friend is aware, there are no vacant sites in the borough for the relief of the overcrowded conditions which exist in the borough; it is necessary to rely primarily on the provisions undertaken by the London County Council. That authority is carrying out a large programme of building which includes a number of schemes for providing housing accommodation in the inner parts of London. The county council have also undertaken schemes for dealing with unhealthy areas in the borough. As regards the last part of the question, I would refer my hon. Friend to the Bill which has just been laid before the House.

Mr. DAY: Will the right hon. Gentleman use his good offices with the London County Council to see that certain provision is made for the residents in the borough of Southwark, who are at present living under disgraceful conditions?

Mr. GREENWOOD: The county council, as I have said in my answer, has taken steps to provide accommodation in the inner parts of London.

Mr. DAY: Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that the county council has absolutely refused to make provision to relieve this congestion?

SLUM DWELLINGS.

Major NATHAN: 75.
asked the Minister of Health if he will state the estimated number of slum dwellings that ought to be disinhabited if other accommodation were available, and the number of families and of persons now inhabitating such dwellings?

Mr. GREENWOOD: I would refer the hon. and gallant Member to the reply given to a previous question put by my hon. and gallant Friend, the Member for Central Hull (Lieut.-Commander Kenworthy) of which I am sending him a copy.

PENTONVILLE PRISON SITE.

Mr. R. S. YOUNG: 36.
asked the Home Secretary if he can now give the names of local authorities which have approached him with a view to the taking over of the site of Pentonville Prison for working-class housing; whether any particular local authority has been selected and is being definitely negotiated with; if any price has been fixed; and how soon work will commence?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. Short): Before my right hon. Friend can consider entering into any negotiations for the sale of Pentonville Prison, he will have to determine whether satisfactory arrangements can be made for alternative accommodation of the large number of prisoners now sent to Pentonville. This is a very difficult problem, and while my right hon. Friend can assure my hon. Friend that there has been and will be no delay in examining the many financial and administrative questions which arise, he is not yet in a position to announce any conclusion.

CONTRIBUTORY PENSIONS ACT.

Mr. THOMAS LEWIS: 59.
asked the Minister of Health if, with a view to assisting all widows and orphans of insured persons who died after 4th January, 1926, he will bring in the necessary legislation to repeal condition (b) of Section 5 of the Widows', Orphans', and Old Age Contributory Pensions Act, 1925, thereby abolishing the average contribution test in all cases, instead of limiting this privilege to those persons mentioned in Section 6, sub-section (2), of the Widows', Orphans', and Old Age Contributory Pensions Act, 1929?

Mr. GREENWOOD: I am afraid that no further relaxation of the condition referred to than is provided for in subsection (2) of Section 6 of the Contributory Pensions Act, 1929, could be justified when regard is had to the fact that the object of the condition is to, secure that
the widows who receive pensions under the contributory scheme are within the class for which these pensions were designed, namely, widows of men who were genuinely of the insurable class.

Sir K. WOOD: Does the Minister of Health remember how he complained of this condition a year ago?

HON. MEMBERS: Answer!

Mr. JAMES WILSON: 62.
asked the Minister of Health how many widows have been refused a widow's pension on the ground that their late husbands had not made the necessary number of contributions to the National Health Insurance Scheme; and whether he contemplates at an early date presenting legislation that will place such widows in as favourable a position as the widows of men who had made no contributions to the scheme?

Mr. GREENWOOD: As regards the first part of the question, information is not available as to the number of widows who have failed to secure pensions because the necessary number of qualifying contributions were not paid by or in respect of their husbands; as regards the second part, the matter was exhaustively discussed on the Committee stage of the Widows', Orphans', and Old Age Contributory Pensions Bill, 1929, and for the reasons then given I am not prepared to introduce legislation on the lines suggested.

Sir K. WOOD: How long will these widows have to wait for the pension which the right hon. Gentleman promised them?

HON. MEMBERS: Answer!

Sir W. BRASS: May I ask whether widows over 55 years of age, whose husbands died since the introduction of the Act without paying a sufficient number of contributions, are being treated differently from the widows whose husbands died before the Act?

HON. MEMBERS: Answer!

Major the Marquess of TITCHFIELD: 71.
asked the Minister of Health how many widows are excluded from the provisions of the Widows', Orphans', and Old Age Contributory Pensions Act, 1929?

Mr. GREENWOOD: The information desired is not available.

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: 77.
asked the Minister of Health whether he has received a copy of a recent resolution passed at the annual general meeting of the National Federation of Employés' Approved Societies, demanding that the whole system of National Health Insurance and Widows', Orphans', and Old Age Contributory Pensions be reviewed with a view to simplification, and for provision to be made for ail persons to have an equal opportunity of being insured on equal terms; and what action he proposes to take?

Mr. GREENWOOD: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. The matter comes within the scope of the Committee engaged on a general survey of existing insurance and pensions legislation.

Oral Answers to Questions — PUBLIC HEALTH.

LOCK HOSPITAL.

Mr. ERNEST BROWN: 60.
asked the Minister of Health if he is now in a position to announce the reforms undertaken by the board of the Lock Hospital; whether any women have been appointed to its governing board; and, if so, what are their names?

Mr. GREENWOOD: The governing body of this hospital have given effect to a number of the recommendations contained in the Papers presented to Parliament last July, and I understand that further improvements are in contemplation. I do not consider that the best interests of the hospital would be served by publishing details at the present time of the reforms already effected. As regards the remaining parts of the question, the board of management of the hospital includes the following ladies: Mrs. Hatfeild, J.P.; Councillor Mrs. Hendin, J.P.; Commissioner Mrs. Lamb, J.P.; Lady Leitrim; Miss E. E. Macneill; Miss Mowll.

PSITTACOSIS.

Mr. WHITE: 63.
asked the Minister of Health if he can state the number of cases of psittacosis notified during the month of March?

Mr. GREENWOOD: Psittacosis is not a notifiable disease, but my Department has received information of 20 cases of illness which commenced last month and in which the patients had been associated with sick parrots. I am advised, however, that in the present state of knowledge of psittacosis it is not possible to say definitely how many of these persons were in fact suffering from that disease.

Dr. DAVIES: Is the right hon. Gentleman considering the question of prohibiting the importation of these parrots?

NUMBER of PATIENTS who died in Institutions under the jurisdiction of the Board of Control.


Year.
Institutions for the Insane (under the Lunacy Acts).
Institutions for Mental Defectives.


1920
…
…
8,476
Not available.


1921
…
…
8,523
117
 Not including deaths in poor Law Institutions approved under Section 37 of the Mental Deficiency Act, 1913, Certified Houses, or Approved Homes.


1922
…
…
9,370
207


1923
…
…
8,326
181


1924
…
…
8,386
206


1925
…
…
8,521
256


1926
…
…
8,392
177


1927
…
…
9,292
207
Not including deaths in Poor Law Institutions approved under Section 37 of the Mental Deficiency Act, 1913.


1928
…
…
8,747
222


1929
…
…
9,775
220

Mr. KINLEY: 73.
asked the Minister of Health the number of institutions under the jurisdiction of the Board of Control in which the approved accommodation is in excess of normal requirements; and what is that excess?

Mr. GREENWOOD: There are 44 local authorities under the Lunacy Act who have accommodation in excess of that required for patients within their own area; and the total number of beds is at present 5,272. Most of this surplus accommodation is, however, occupied by patients received under reception contracts from other local authorities who have insufficient accommodation or do not own a mental hospital. I am informed that private institutions under the Lunacy Act have sufficient vacant beds to meet normal requirements. In the case of mental deficiency institutions, there is no accommodation in excess of normal requirements.

Mr. KINLEY: Are steps being taken to secure accommodation in the case of local authorities which at present have no accommodation?

MENTAL TREATMENT.

Mr. KINLEY: 72.
asked the Minister of Health the number of patients who died in institutions under the jurisdiction of the Board of Control during each of the last 10 years?

Mr. GREENWOOD: I will, with my hon. Friend's permission, circulate the available particulars in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following are the particulars:

Mr. GREENWOOD: That matter is now under consideration.

Mr. KINLEY: 74.
asked the Minister of Health the average number of patients per doctor in the institutions under the jurisdiction of the Board of Control?

Mr. GREENWOOD: As regards institutions under the Lunacy Act, the average number of patients to each member of the resident medical staff is:

(a) In county and borough mental hospitals, 280;
(b) In registered hospitals, 61; and
(c) In licensed houses 35.

Most of these institutions have, in addition to their resident staff, a number of visiting consultants. In mental deficiency institutions, the average number of patients to each member of the staff, resident and non-resident, is 111.

BIRTH CONTROL.

Mr. R. S. YOUNG: 81.
asked the Minister of Health whether it has been reported to him by his medical officers that
there are any demands or requests for birth control information from mothers at subsidised welfare centres?

Mr. GREENWOOD: Such requests are only occasionally reported by the medical officers of the Department.

MATERNITY WELFARE (MILK).

Mr. R. S. YOUNG: 82.
asked the Minister of Health the number of local authorities which have increased their expenditure on milk since May, 1929; and whether it is his policy to encourage such expenditure in the interests of expectant and nursing mothers and their babies?

Mr. GREENWOOD: There were 47 cases in which I sanctioned an increased expenditure on milk by local authorities during the past financial year, and in 99 other cases the revised estimates of the local authorities showed some increase in this expenditure, as compared with the original estimates. As regards the last part of the question, I have given a general sanction to the extension of this service to such an extent, and in such a manner, as the local authorities think desirable.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: Has my right hon. Friend made up the sums taken from them by his predecessor?

IMPORTED MILK AND CREAM.

Brigadier - General CLIFTON BROWN: 84.
asked the Minister of Health what was the amount of liquid milk and what was the amount of liquid cream imported into this country in 1929; from what countries did they come, respectively; and what precautions were taken to see that they were free from tuberculosis?

Mr. GREENWOOD: I am informed that 56,460 cwts. of milk and 138,604 cwts. of cream were imported into Great Britain and Northern Ireland in 1929. All the milk except 406 cwts. from Denmark and the Netherlands came from the Irish Free State. I am sending the hon. and gallant Member a statement showing the countries from which the imports of cream were received. Imports of milk from outside the British Islands are subject to examination for tubercle under
the Imported Milk Regulations. There is no examination of imported cream for this purpose.

CHILD ADOPTION (ADVERTISEMENTS).

Mr. LOVAT-FRASER: 61.
asked the Minister of Health whether he is aware that provincial newspapers constantly publish advertisements which offer to adopt children and which have only a box number; whether he is aware that the advertisers are sometimes people from whom the licence to take children has been withdrawn and people who are unaware that a licence is necessary; and whether he will take steps to make it compulsory that the names of such advertisers under a box number shall be sent by the Press to the clerk of the appropriate public assistance committee?

Mr. GREENWOOD: No recent advertisements of this kind have been brought to the notice of my Department, and I have no information to the effect of the second part of the question. As regards the third part, this suggestion will receive consideration in connection with any legislation for the amendment of Part I of the Children Act, 1908.

CLERKS OF COUNTY COUNCILS (APPOINTMENTS).

Mr. FOOT: 68.
asked the Minister of Health if he is now in a position to make any statement as to the introduction of legislation in regard to the appointment of clerks of the county councils and clerks of the peace?

Mr. GREENWOOD: I have recently informed the County Councils' Association that, while I am in sympathy with such legislation, it cannot be included in the programme of the Government for the current Session of Parliament.

CENSUS.

Major CARVER: 69.
asked the Minister of Health if he will state the day of the month in 1931 when the next Census will be taken; and whether the schedule of information desired will differ in any way from that in use in 1921, and, if so, in what respect?

Mr. GREENWOOD: I would refer the hon. and gallant Member to my reply on the 26th ultimo to the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnor (Mr. Freeman).

POOR LAW (STONE BREAKING).

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: 76.
asked the Minister of Health if he will state in how many Poor Law institutions stone breaking is still imposed as a task; and what steps he is taking in the matter?

Mr. GREENWOOD: The Report of the inquiry into test work which I propose to publish deals with this matter, and I would ask my hon. Friend to await its publication.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Is my right hon. Friend not aware that in the meantime stone breaking is still being given, and cannot he give the simple information for which I ask? There is nothing confidential about it.

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: Will the right hon. Gentleman also say when he intends to publish the Report.

Mr. GREENWOOD: I cannot say to-day, but certainly as soon as possible.

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: Has not the right hon. Gentleman had this matter in hand for a very long time?

SOCIAL INSURANCE SCHEMES.

Sir K. WOOD: 78.
asked the Minister of Health whether the general survey of social insurance schemes by the special committee has now been completed?

Mr. GREENWOOD: No, Sir.

Sir K. WOOD: How long will it be before this committee arrives at a conclusion, or is the answer which the right hon. Gentleman has given simply a means of evading the undertakings which he has already given?

Captain GUNSTON: May I very respectfully ask you, Mr. Speaker, on a point of Order, whether it is in order for the Minister of Health to refuse to answer any supplementary questions at all?

Mr. SPEAKER: No point of Order arises.

Oral Answers to Questions — NATIONAL FINANCE.

TOBACCO DUTY.

Mr. MARJORIBANKS: 85.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer the net revenue derived from the importation of tobacco during the current financial year?

The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Philip Snowden): I assume that the hon. Member's question means something different from what it is expressed to mean in referring to the current financial year. Up to 28th February, the amount was approximately £57,366,000.

Mr. MARJORIBANKS: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that he said the other day that the bulk of the revenue from import duties came from tobacco, and, having regard to his present answer, did he not mislead the House on that occasion?

Mr. SNOWDEN: The greater bulk of the revenue from these import duties comes from tobacco. I have just given the figure, namely, £57,000,000. The next items are sugar, £14,000,000; oil, £15,000,000; spirits, £6,000,000; beer, £6,000,000. The McKenna Duties yield about £3,000,000.

Mr. FREEMAN: 87.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer the net revenue derived from the Tobacco Duty in the current financial year from Empire and non-Empire products; and the amount from manufactured and unmanufactured tobacco?

Mr. P. SNOWDEN: Up to 28th February, the amounts were approximately £7,680,000 from Empire products, £49,686,000 from non-Empire products, £581,000 from manufactured tobacco, and £56,785,000 from unmanufactured tobacco

OIL DUTIES.

Mr. MUFF: 92.
asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury what the cost would be to the Exchequer if the duties on hydrocarbon oils, turpentine and white spirit, now used by paint and varnish manufacturers, were remitted?

Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: The official records do not show how much of these commodities is used by paint and varnish manufacturers, and it is difficult
to see how remission could be confined to use in these particular trades. It is anticipated that the remission so extended would cost over £1,000,000 a year.

WEST INDIES (SUGAR INDUSTRY).

Mr. MARJORIBANKS: 86.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether there were any special circumstances operating during the current financial year to account for a decrease of £81,000 in the revenue derived from the importation of British West Indian sugar?

Mr. P. SNOWDEN: I am not aware of any such special circumstances. The revenue derived from British West Indian sugar fluctuates considerably. For instance, the receipts from this source in the first 11 months of the current financial year, while 20 per cent. below those of the corresponding period of 1928–29, were 50 per cent. above those of the whole of 1927–28.

Mr. MARJORIBANKS: On a point of Order. I submit that I am perfectly correct in putting this question for the current financial year. May I ask, as a supplementary question, whether the right hon. Gentleman would include among the special circumstances the ambiguous statement which he made at the beginning of this Parliament, and his obstinate silence since?

HATRY PROSECUTION.

Sir K. WOOD: 91.
asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether he can now state the estimated cost, including counsel's fees, of the recent prosecution of Hatry and others?

Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: The total costs of the prosecution in the cases of Rex v. Hatry and others amount to £3,729 3s. 1d. The amount received from local funds towards the costs of the prosecution, with allowances made by the Court, is £1,902 10s.

Sir F. HALL: Can the hon. Gentleman say how much of that the Attorney-General is getting?

Mr. DAY: Does the amount which the hon. Gentleman has stated include the cost of the extradition of Mr. Gialdini?

Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: Of both those questions I must have notice.

Sir F. HALL: Then I will give notice.

Oral Answers to Questions — AGRICULTURE.

ARABLE FARMING.

Mr. GRANVILLE: 95.
asked the Minister of Agriculture if he will now state when it is intended to introduce proposals to deal with the depression in arable farming?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of AGRICULTURE (Dr. Addison): A considerable number of proposals, some of them of a very complicated nature, are being examined by the Government, and my right hon. Friend is not in a position at present to say when that examination will be completed.

BEET-SUGAR PRODUCTION.

Major CARVER: 96.
asked the Minister of Agriculture the quantity of beet sugar which was produced in this country during the season which has just ended?

Dr. ADDISON: The quantity of beet sugar produced in Great Britain during the manufacturing season 1929–30 was 5,789,784 cwts.

BEEP (GRADING AND MARKING).

Mr. HOPKIN: 97.
asked the Minister of Agriculture if the system of grading and marking British beef will be established shortly in West Wales; and, if so, in which town?

Dr. ADDISON: The question of the extension of the National Mark Beef Scheme to other centres in England and Wales is under consideration.

LAND DRAINAGE SCHEME, BILLINGHAY SOUTH.

Sir VICTOR WARRENDER: 98.
asked the Minister of Agriculture whether he has considered the Billinghay South district drainage scheme; and what decision has been arrived at?

Dr. ADDISON: The scheme referred to by the hon. Baronet has been approved for a grant of 75 per cent. of the wages bill, subject to the scheme being carried out to the satisfaction of the Ministry.

WHEAT PRODUCTION.

Mr. ROSBOTHAM: 99.
asked the Minister of Agriculture the quantity of wheat produced in Great Britain for the 1928 and 1929 seasons?

Dr. ADDISON: The estimated production of wheat in Great Britain in 1928 and 1929 was 1,328,000 tons and 1,329,000 tons respectively.

RUSSIAN CEREALS (IMPORTS).

Sir HARRY HOPE: asked the Minister of Agriculture whether he is aware that cargoes of Russian cereals are being refused entry to certain Continental countries and are being dumped into British ports; and whether he proposes to take any steps to combat this menace to British agriculture?

Dr. ADDISON: I would refer the hon. Member to my reply to the hon. and gallant Member for Maidstone (Commander Bellairs) on 27th March, of which I am sending him a copy.

AIRSHIPS (MOORING MASTS).

Mr. LOUIS SMITH: 101.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for Air the number of mooring masts for airships now in existence in this country and the intentions of his Department with regard to their increase?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for AIR (Mr. Montague): There is only one mooring mast in this country suitable for R100 and R101, but the question of erecting additional masts will be considered when further experience has been gained with the present airships.

Sir W. BRASS: Can the hon. Gentleman say what it costs to build a mooring mast?

Mr. MONTAGUE: Not without notice.

SAFEGUARDING DUTIES (WRAPPING PAPER).

Major McKENZIE WOOD: 102.
asked the President of the Board of Trade if he has received a petition signed by 176 British manufacturers and merchants, responsible for the employment of 78,000 workpeople, urging an early repeal of the Wrapping Paper Duty on the ground
of its being a burden on the consuming trades; and, if so, what action he proposes to take?

Mr. GILLETT (Secretary, Overseas Trade Department): The answer to the first part of the question is an the affirmative. As regards the second part, I cannot anticipate my right hon. Friend's Budget statement.

Major WOOD: Will the hon. Gentleman pass the petition on to the Chancellor of the Exchequer?

Mr. GILLETT: I will certainly pass it on.

Mr. REMER: How many of these firms are manufacturers and how many merchants?

Mr. GILLETT: I could not say without notice.

FISHING INDUSTRY, SCOTLAND.

Mr. E. BROWN: 104.
asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether a deputation representing those fishermen who use the ring-net method will be received either by him or by the representatives of the Fishery Board?

The SECRETARY of STATE for SCOTLAND (Mr. William Adamson): The Fishery Board will be glad to arrange for the reception of a deputation from the fishermen in question if so desired.

KENYA (NATIVE SONGS AND DANCES).

Brigadier-General BROWN: 103.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he is aware of the unrest among the Kikuyu in Kenya and that they openly threaten the wives and families of the white settlers if their customs are interfered with; and whether proper steps are being taken to protect the settlers in case of trouble?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for the COLONIES (Dr. Drummond Shiels): My Noble Friend is expecting full information by despatch from the Governor of Kenya in regard to recent incidents in the Kikuyu Reserve. He is not aware that special measures for the protection of life have been thought necessary; but he feels sure that if cir-
cumstances should make it desirable at any time to adopt measures to that end in the Kikuyu Province or any other part of the Colony—and on his present information he does not anticipate that such a situation will arise—the Government of Kenya may be relied upon to take the necessary action.

Brigadier-General BROWN: If I give the hon. Gentleman letters from some of the local newspapers, will he consider them?

Dr. SHIELS: Certainly, I shall be very happy to do so.

EMPIRE SETTLEMENT (DOMESTIC SERVANTS).

Major GLYN: 106.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs how many centres are now in operation for the training of young persons for domestic service and for filling posts overseas through the assistance of such organisations as the Salvation Army, Church Army, etc.; and how many such persons are there now receiving training?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for DOMINION AFFAIRS (Mr. Lunn): His Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom are co-operating in the maintenance of seven residential training centres for women intending to take up household work overseas. There are at present 131 women in training at these centres. In addition, they co-operate with the Scottish Council of Women's Trades in a scheme for training women in individual homes in Scotland. Sixty-eight women are at present undergoing such training.

HOUSE OF COMMONS (LIGHTING).

Major COLFOX: 107.
asked the First Commissioner of Works why the lighting system of the passages of the House of Commons is being changed and at what cost to the taxpayers?

The FIRST COMMISSIONER of WORKS (Mr. Lansbury): The lighting of many of the corridors at the House of Commons is inadequate and unsatisfactory, and improvements are being made after repeated representations from Members of this House. The work is also in part due to the fact that, in any
case, the wiring required renewal. The estimated cost for completing the relighting of the principal corridors of the House of Commons, including the rewiring, is £750.

Major COLFOX: Is this another instance of economical administration?

Mr. LANSBURY: Yes, Sir.

SINGAPORE DOCK (CEMENT).

Mr. CHARLES WILLIAMS: 108.
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty if the cement used in the construction of the Singapore Dock is of British origin?

The CIVIL LORD of the ADMIRALTY (Mr. George Hall): The answer is in the affirmative.

Oral Answers to Questions — PALESTINE.

PRIME MINISTER'S STATEMENT.

Mr. STANLEY BALDWIN: (by Private Notice) asked the Prime Minister whether he is now in a position to make a statement in respect to policy in Palestine?

The PRIME MINISTER: His Majesty's Government will continue to administer Palestine in accordance with the terms of the Mandate as approved by the Council of the League of Nations. That is an international obligation from which there can be no question of receding.
Under the terms of the Mandate, His Majesty's Government are responsible for promoting "the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which might prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country."
A double undertaking is involved, to the Jewish people on the one hand, and to the non-Jewish population of Palestine on the other; and it is the firm resolve of His Majesty's Government to give effect, in equal measure, to both parts of the Declaration and to do equal justice to all sections of the populations of Palestine. That is a duty from which they will not shrink, and to the discharge of which they will apply all the resources at their command.
The report of the Shaw Commission, which is in the hands of hon. Members, covers a wide field. The Commission was appointed to consider the immediate causes of the deplorable disturbances of August last, and to suggest means of preventing a recurrence. In endeavouring faithfully to carry out the terms of reference, the Commission must have found it difficult to draw lines very rigidly. The Government is now studying the various recommendations of the Commission with a view to dealing with the immediate causes of the outbreak and to preventing a recurrence, and is in consultation with the interests concerned. I wish it to be understood that this statement includes the immediate provision of the police forces required to secure civil peace under existing circumstances.

Mr. BALDWIN: I think the Prime Minister has gone as far as he could at the moment and I think his statement will be received with satisfaction by the House. I presume that in due course, when the Government have had an opportunity of further consideration, opportunity will be given to the House for discussion.

The PRIME MINISTER: As a matter of fact, we are in active consultation now with all the parties concerned, both in Palestine and those who are available for conference here, and no time will be lost to amplify the statement that I have been able to make.

Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I should like to associate myself with the declaration of the Leader of the Opposition with regard to the statement of the Prime Minister.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.

Mr. S. BALDWIN: Can the Prime Minister tell us what the business for next week will be?

The PRIME MINISTER: On Monday and Tuesday, we shall take the Second Reading of the Housing (No. 2) Bill. followed by the Committee stage of the necessary Money Resolution.
On Tuesday, we shall also take the Committee stage of the Unemployment Insurance (No. 3) Bill.
On Wednesday, the Third Reading of the Unemployment Insurance (No. 3) Bill, the Committee stage of the Overseas Trade Guarantees Money Resolution and the Second Reading of the Reservoirs (Safety Provisions) Bill [Lords.]
On Thursday, the Second Reading of the Housing (Scotland) Bill, and the Committee stage of the necessary Money Resolution.
On Friday, further stages of the Mental Treatment Bill.
On any day, if time permits, other Orders will be taken.
Ordered,
That the Proceedings on the Coal Mines Bill and the Army and Air Force (Annual) Bill have precedence this day of the Business of Supply."—[The Prime Minister.]

BILLS PRESENTED

HOUSING (SCOTLAND) BILL,

"to make further and better provision with respect to the clearance or improvement of unhealthy areas the repair, demolition, or closing of insanitary houses, and the housing of persons of the working classes in Scotland; to amend the Housing (Scotland) Act, 1925, the Housing, amp;c., Act, 1923, the Housing (Financial Provisions) Act, 1924, and other enactments relating to housing subsidies; and for purposes connected with the matters aforesaid," presented by Mr. William Adamson; supported by the Lord Advocate and Mr. T. Johnston; to be read a Second time upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 156.]

NAVY AND MARINES WILLS BILL,

"to amend the Navy and Marines (Wills) Act, 1865," presented by Mr. Ammon; to be read a Second time upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 157.]

SEA FISHERIES REGULATION (EXPENSES) BILL,

"to provide for the payment of travelling expenses incurred by members of local fisheries committees constituted under the Sea Fisheries Regulation Act, 1888," presented by Mr. Noel Buxton; to be read a Second time upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 158.]

BOARD OF EDUCATION SCHEME (DEVON, CREDITON EXHIBITION FOUNDATION) CONFIRMATION BILL,

"to confirm a Scheme approved and certified by the Board of Education under the Charitable Trusts Acts, 1853 to 1925, relating to the Crediton Exhibition Foundation in the ancient parish of Crediton, in the county of Devon," presented by Mr. Morgan Jones; to be read a Second time upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 159.]

BILLS REPORTED.

MENTAL TREATMENT BILL [Lords].

Reported, with Amendments, from Standing Committee A.

Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.

Minutes of the Proceedings of the Standing Committee to be printed.

Bill, as amended (in the Standing Committee), to be taken into consideration upon Wednesday next, and to be printed. [Bill 154.]

SHAKESPEARE BIRTHPLACE, amp;C., TRUST AMENDMENT BILL [Lords].

Reported, without Amendment; Report to lie upon the Table.

Bill to be read the Third time.

BROMBOROUGH DOCK BILL [Lords].

Reported, without Amendment; Report to lie upon the Table.

Bill to be read the Third time.

MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDERS (GUILDFORD AND WEST KENT MAIN SEWERAGE DISTRICT) BILL.

Reported, without Amendment [Provisional Orders confirmed]; Report to lie upon the Table.

Bill to be read the Third time Tomorrow.

SMALL LANDHOLDERS (SCOTLAND) ACTS (1886 TO 1919) AMENDMENT BILL.

Reported, with Amendments, from the Standing Committee on Scottish Bills.

Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.

Minutes of the Proceedings of the Standing Committee to be printed.

Bill, as amended (in the Standing Committee), to be taken into consideration
upon Friday, 23rd May, and to be printed. [Bill 155.]

LONDON ELECTRIC, METROPOLITAN DISTRICT, CENTRAL LONDON, AND CITY AND SOUTH LONDON RAILWAY COMPANIES BILL (CERTIFIED BILL).

Reported, with Amendments; Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.

Bill, as amended, to be considered upon Monday next, pursuant to the Order of the House of 11th December.

SELECTION (STANDING COMMITTEES).

STANDING COMMITTEE B.

Mr. Frederick Hall reported from the Committee of Selection: That they had discharged the following Member from Standing Committee B (added in respect of the Hairdressers' and Barbers' Shops (Sunday Closing) Bill): Mr. Frank Owen; and had appointed in substitution: Mr. Blindell.

Report to lie upon the Table.

CHAIRMEN'S PANEL.

Mr. Frederick Hall reported from the Chairmen's Panel; That they had appointed Mr. Scurr to act as Chairman of Standing Committee A (in respect of the Railways (Valuation for Rating) Bill).

Report to lie upon the Table.

MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.

That they have agreed to,—

South Staffordshire Mond Gas Bill, without Amendment.

Amendments to—

Portsmouth Corporation Bill [Lords], without Amendment.

That they have passed a Bill, intituled, "An Act to confirm a Provisional Order under the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1899, relating to the London Midland and Scottish Railway (Hotel Water)." [London Midland and Scottish Railway (Hotel Water) Order Confirmation Bill [Lords].]

LONDON MIDLAND AND SCOTTISH RAILWAY (HOTEL WATER) ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL [Lords].

Ordered (under Section 7 of the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1899) to be considered To-morrow.

Orders of the Day — COAL MINES BILL.

Order read for resuming Adjourned Debate on Question [2nd April], "That the Bill be now read the Third time."

Question again proposed.

Mr. STANLEY BALDWIN: I beg to move to leave out the word "now," and, at the end of the Question to add the words "upon this day six months."
We now enter upon the final act of the drama which has held the stage through so many long days and long evenings during the present Session of Parliament. I should like to preface my remarks by paying some tribute to the Members who have conducted the Debates and to the high quality of the Debates and the skill and knowledge which have been brought to bear in the many discussions, and particularly, I should like to congratulate the President of the Board of Trade who has indeed carried the burden of the day almost single-handed, and with such charm that we have forborne to feel in the slightest degree aggrieved by any inability on his part to explain the inexplicable or to justify the unjustifiable.
I should like, before I proceed to the brief examination of the Bill which I propose to give to it, to say a word or two in defence of the mining industry as a whole. Little has been said of the wonderful progress which has been made by that industry in the last two or three years. The constant struggles which have taken place in the industry during recent years have, to some extent, blinded people to a great deal that has gone on. Many people who know nothing of the mining situation are apt to get very tired of the publicity which is given to the industry. They are very apt, according to their predilections, to classify the miners as troublesome fighting fellows or the owners as ignorant and inefficient. From that, and from a great deal that has been said during the struggles, there is a very common idea abroad that the mining industry of Great Britain is down-and-out, and that it has very little chance of survival.
I would like those people to reflect for a moment how, in an atmosphere of depressed industry in this country, in face
of a poor demand, having regard to the use of fuel substitutes, and when you remember the economic difficulties of the country, the foreign competition to which we are subjected, competition arising from nations with lower wage scales and infinitely lower social services than we enjoy, we have produced and sold something like 240,000,000 tons of coal, 60,000,000 of which have been sold in competition at world prices, a figure within 20 per cent. of the peak figures of 1913. It is a most remarkable performance and reflects immense credit upon the whole industry.
It confirms me in my view that the British miner is second to none in the world. I would add that, when you have regard to the financial position of that industry, to the shortage of capital owing partly to domestic troubles in the industry and partly to bad trade, shortness of capital, which makes it so difficult to provide new machinery or new equipment, it is proof that, at any rate, no general charge of inefficiency can be brought against the management of the industry. Given peace, given confidence and given a revival of trade, I for one have no fear of the ultimate future of the industry, or of its ability to take care of itself. Before we left office we were within sight of the corner of a very long lane. The industry was beginning, in places, to pay its way, and it had in front of it, in the autumn, the advantages accruing from de-rating.
Now we have this Bill, and this Bill, for good or for evil, is going to make a very great deal of difference both in the administration and the management of that industry and to re-act on its future. The reason for the Bill, which is thoroughly unjustifiable economically, whatever it may be on other grounds, lies in politics, and when you get politics and business mixed, as I have always said, you get an explosion or disaster of some kind. [An HON. MEMBER: "Referendum."] The Bill is a direct outcome of certain pledges which were given at the last election. It is not exactly the fulfilment of a pledge. It is the payment of 50 per cent., and that 50 per cent. has been accepted. I may say, in passing, that I doubt very much if it would have been accepted from me, but that is another story. But the Bill has been accepted. There is to be half-an-hour's
reduction, but there is no guarantee in the Bill, nor can there be any guarantee, that that half-an-hour's reduction, which must add to the cost of mining the coal, is going to be obtained without a reduction of wages. But a reduction of wages is unjustifiable, because it would lead to grave trouble, and therefore a way out had to be found. A way out has been found in this Bill for which the whole responsibility rests on hon. Members opposite, and on the Liberal party, to whose ingenuity and persistence we owe primarily the celebrated Clause on compulsory amalgamations.
I should like to say a few words about amalgamations, because in the active part of the Bill the two points that appear to me to cause the greatest difficulty are the compulsory amalgamations, and, what we may call, the compulsory price rings. As the House knows, I do not like a long word from choice. Long words are always used to obscure meaning and "amalgamation" is a word like "Mesopotamia," "co-operation," "co-ordination," and "rationalisation." [An HON. MEMBER: "And referendum !"] They are very often used to cover a want of clearness of thought. That is the reason why I always make a point, as far as I am able, if I use any of these words, to explain very carefully what I mean. Of amalgamations we have heard very little, and many people go about the country saying, "Oh, what the coal industry wants to do is to amalgamate." I want to examine the situation for a moment.
4.0 p.m.
I remember very well, many years ago, walking through the hop-fields in Worcestershire, and a stalwart young woman approaching me dragging a reluctant youth towards me by the lapels of his coat. "This is my young man," she said to me. "We are not exactly married, but we've been co-operated" Like amalgamation, it covers a multitude of sins. You can imagine in a few years' time a group of coalowners coming to the President of the Board of Trade and saying, "We are not exactly united, but we've been amalgamated." Let me use a homely illustration. In trying to get more production from the Government Front Bench, compulsory amalgamation would be a
useful thing—compulsory amalgamation of the Lord Privy Seal and the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, with the Chancellor of the Exchequer as the banker. You see the point I am aiming at by using a homely illustration. Whether amalgamation is to succeed or not, depends on a hundred questions of personal equation.
You cannot amalgamate some concerns, and you cannot amalgamate some people. The whole system of amalgamations in the coal trade and any other big manufacturing industry is absolutely distinct. Amalgamation may be a very good thing in the iron and steel trade—and this is a form of rationalisation—when it is properly done by bringing together companies, by the companies joining forces on one spot with their big productive units. Then you may get economy. But coal pits differ very much from each other, they are scattered about the country, and there is a real fear that the end of your compulsory amalgamation, apart from the personal equation, may be simply this, that you take a progressive, productive concern, and you kill it by hanging half-a-dozen duds round its neck. We have seen some of that kind of thing in the last few years in some of the financial amalgamations. Anyone who comes from certain districts will know well what I mean. An amalgamation has been brought about, that left without any capital, and the last state of the amalgamated company has been far worse than the state of all the separate units in it would have been if left alone. It is the compulsory amalgamation. I believe that amalgamation, as has been said by many in this House, if carried out by individuals—under general pressure if you like—will far more nearly accomplish what you have in view, and what, in itself, is not bad in essence. Compulsory amalgamation I do dread very much, and I also dread it from the financial point of view. An amalgamation, unless carried out with skill, unless left in a sound financial position, finds it very difficult to get fresh capital, which is what is wanted in the industry more than anything.
That is one problem, and the other problem is that of management. The great difficulty of all large amalgamations is to get the right people to manage.
Amalgamation, of course, has been the principle form of rationalisation in many cases of industry in many countries, but I fancy now there is beginning to be a reaction in those countries which have carried amalgamation the furthest, in finding that, after all, there is a limit to the size of the amalgamated units beyond which amalgamation is rarely successful. It calls for rare gifts of management and rare gifts of administration. The mere fact of amalgamating can neither assure you success in finance nor assure you success in what is equally important—management.
I will say a word or two on the question of compulsory price rings. We are not in this country very fond of price rings. I have heard many speeches directed from benches opposite in previous Parliaments on this subject, and the justification for such an experiment has, in my view, to be much stronger than any justification that has been put forward during these Debates. I regard a price ring, where prices are raised, as a backward step economically. I regard it as a backward step for the reason that I think it will have the effect in certain of the industries of this country of which I know something, and, therefore, probably in many industries of which I know nothing, of retarding progress rather than assisting it. Of course, one of the difficulties we have in discussing this Bill is that neither the President of the Board of Trade nor anyone else can tell us for a certainty what will be the cost of certain action we are taking in this Bill. It is a leap in the dark. Hon. Members opposite hope that we shall land on soft ground. I hope we shall. We may very easily land on something that will break our necks. We do not know where we are going to land, but it does seem fairly clear from the Debate, that among the people who will have to pay more for their coal are the public utility companies and the great electrical concerns.
If there is one thing I consider of the first importance in this country, and which animated me and those who worked with me in passing the Electricity Act five years ago, it is the universal provision of a cheap supply of electricity, and one of the ways in which you get that, apart, of course, from the cheapness of your fuel and your material, is by the electricity works on a big scale supplant-
ing the little single units that are found dotted about all over the country. Supposing, as I believe is the case, the big electricity companies have to face a substantial advance on their fuel, the small man his works who buys his fuel at the cheaper price, at which, I understand, many of the industries are able to purchase their fuel, has at once taken from him the incentive which exists to-day to scrap his small plant and depend on the utility company, thereby increasing the consumption and helping to reduce the cost of supply all over the country. It seems to me that a step in this direction is a backward one, and not a forward one.
I may say a word, also, on a subject with which I happen, or happened, to be well acquainted, and that is the question of the large steel works. That was discussed, I think, last night; certainly it has been discussed in the last few days. The case is not unfamiliar to Members, but it is worth looking at once more as typical of the way in which the action or this Bill will hit companies in this country which have been progressing and done everything they can to bring themselves up-to-date. Now in the iron and steel trade for many years past companies which wished to be in the van of progress, and which wished to produce their steel at competitive prices, have been regularly amalgamating various interests in a vertical line from bottom to top; that is to say, they have secured the control of the ore, the limestone and coal, and right the way up to everything that they need to produce the finished article. That has undoubtedly made for economy, and it has been a wholly good thing. This Bill is going to hit those companies, and, as hon. Members opposite know as well as we on this side of the House know, there is no raw material—"raw material" is, perhaps, hardly the phrase, but there is nothing which enters into the manufacture of steel the price of which bears more on the cost of the article than the fuel—the coal.
Take the case of those large works which have spent a considerable sum of money in acquiring coal, in developing pits and in working them for their own consumption, a company which has just about as much coal as it wants for itself, but does not enter, except in very unusual times, into the open market for
selling, and which, accordingly, never has need to buy in the open market. The reduction of output in the districts hits them both ways, whatever the reduction may be, because reduction of output at once sends up the cost of the coal they are mining for themselves, and for the surplus quantity which they are no longer allowed to produce, they have to go outside, and enter into a market where, probably, after such a reduction in the coal has been made there will be very keen and severe competition to secure the amount of fuel that they want. It may well be that the alteration in the cost of the steel affected by the rise in the price of coal which they would have to use, might make just that little difference in securing or losing an order in the face of foreign competition. The President of the Board of Trade seemed quite unable to meet this case, but it is a serious case. It is a case which occurs in every district where steel is made in England and Scotland, and that it has not been met, I think, constitutes a very grave defect in this Bill, and one which I sincerely hope may be remedied before the Act has been in operation for any length of time.
I cannot help feeling some regret that hon. Members opposite would not consider one question which was brought up on this side, and that is the spread of hours over the fortnight. I will tell the House why. In the first place, I am always an advocate of giving an industry the power itself to settle its own hours. I know the argument used by hon. Members opposite. It is one that we have heard very often from the Miners' Federation. [Interruption.] The Government have refused to look at the proposition. I regret it simply for this reason: I quite admit that this inevitable rise in the cost of coal does not seem to worry many of the hon. Members opposite connected with the mining districts as much as it worries those outside. It is quite clear that if an arrangement of hours could have been agreed to between the two parties in the coal trade, it might have been possible to have carried on with no reduction of wages. Had that been the case, the whole necessity for this elaborate system of price rings would have gone, and we might have got through this crisis without incurring, what you will incur, the charge of making fuel dear from one end
of the country to another. I think that would be worth trying, rather than doing what you have done in an Act of Parliament.
There are two main objections that I have, on very wide grounds, to the Bill as a whole. My first objection—here those who have done me the honour of listening to me before will recognise an old friend—is because the Bill causes uncertainty. It causes uncertainty, without doubt, in the coal trade until such times as the coal trade has been able to assimilate all that is in the Bill, which it may be able to do, or may not; that we do not know yet. But it causes uncertainty throughout industry, for this is the first time that Parliament, in its wisdom, has taken upon itself to tell an industry how it is to be conducted. Now that this principle has been applied to one industry and that, in some ways, the most important industry in the country, there is no industry that cannot feel that there is some chance at some time of Parliament interfering and telling it how its business should be managed. Holding the view that uncertainty is bad for trade, I object to the Bill on that ground.
I object to the Bill, secondly, on the ground that by legislation you are going to raise the cost—if you do not raise it, the whole reason of your Bill has gone, and your Bill is ineffective—of a necessary article, necessary alike to business and to individuals throughout the country. It would be a sad thing if there was nothing in this Bill that could give one satisfaction. It is an ill wind that blows nobody any good. This Bill will certainly blow one bit of good. It is going to explode, once and for all time, the one argument that is used against Protection, that in no circumstances should you raise the cost of anything by artificial means. The principle set by this Bill is that by Act of Parliament, if you are dissatisfied with the wages of any industry, you are at liberty to cause the product of that industry to be sold at a higher figure throughout the country. That is a more extreme form of Protection than could possibly be applied by tariffs. You give away at one blow the whole of your case. So far as harm to the trade of the country goes, you might, on the logic of this Bill, say that the agricultural labourer is paid far too little, which is quite true, and that it would do less harm to the country by taxing wheat than by taxing coal.
When this Bill becomes an Act of Parliament the President of the Board of Trade may, very likely, go back to Geneva and ask the countries a Europe to lower their tariffs, and he will do that just after he has passed an Act enabling us to send subsidised coal into every port of Europe. I should like to ask whether the indirect subsidisation of coal for export, which will be one of the effects of this Bill, can be met by foreign countries either by prohibition, by equivalent duties, or by bounties. I do not remember that point having been raised, although it may have been raised—I have not been present at all the Debates—and I should like information on that point.
It is a curious and extraordinary fact to remember in connection with this controversy that to-night, at 7.30, when we divide, all the books of orthodox political economy will be thrown into the funeral pyre, the flames of which will be lighted by the President of the Board of Trade, and when the last leaves of those books are shrivelling, through the flickering flames we shall see the forms of hon. Members opposite, and the Liberal party, dancing round the embers and watching the final consumption of their ancestral scriptures. The indecency of that proceeding, I might almost say the blasphemy of it, takes from me the power of further speech, and I therefore conclude by moving "That the Bill be read the Third time upon this day six months."

The SECRETARY for MINES (Mr. Ben Turner): I most strongly support the Motion "That the Bill be now read the Third time." There have been months of active preparation in connection with the Bill, and to-day is the appointed day for its Third Reading. I desire to join my congratulations with the words of appreciation that the Leader of the Opposition has addressed to the pilot of the Bill. I have been in close association with the President of the Board of Trade for eight or nine months in connection with this matter, and it has been one of the proudest things of my life to be able to work behind the scenes with him and to know how great he has been both in mind and in action. We have had three months' careful examination of the Bill. The claim that was made months ago by the right hon. Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd
George) that this was an owners' Bill has now, I hope, been changed into the belief that it is a House of Commons Bill. The care that has been displayed in the examination of the Bill is an evidence of that change having taken place. Many Amendments have been accepted, not only Amendments moved from below the Gangway opposite but many Amendments moved from the Conservative Benches. On several occasions hon. Members opposite have expressed the joy which they have felt at the acceptance of their Amendments by the Government.
I am not going to follow the Leader of the Opposition into the protective arguments to which he has been alluding. The Bill is a four-part Bill. The first Part consists of the marketing provisions. I am convinced that that is a method of providing an immediate avenue out of the present uneconomic position. Although it is said that it is an owners' Measure in this Part, I contend that the protective safeguards from improper exploitation of the consuming public which have been inserted in the Bill are in themselves evidence that the Government are not unmindful of their responsibilities to the public. The marketing proposals dealing with the production, supply and sale of coal are directed to abolishing some of the existing wastefulness and to overcoming some of the antediluvian methods that have applied to this industry in larger or lesser degree. This Part of the Bill has been subject to many Amendments, some of which have strengthened it.
The amalgamation Clauses in Part II were well hammered out in Committee. I am aware, however, that some of the owners are opposed to them, some of the owners are in favour of them, and some have expressed the view that they wilt lead to proper economy in the industry. The public interest is the paramount interest in this Part of the Bill, as in Part I, and no wild-cat schemes can go through the mesh of the Amalgamation Commissioners or of the Railway and Canal Commission. These amalgamation proposals are simply extending the proposals in the Act of 1926. This brings along what we cannot avoid, namely, the evolution of industry.
Rationalisation has been mentioned by the Leader of the Opposition, but the mixture of words he used were beyond
my understanding. I understand rationalisation to be the development of the organisation of industry, but I am certain that these policies of amalgamations and reorganisations have their evil effects on the human side, even bigger effects than upon the financial side. The well-known conference that was held at Burlington Gardens under Lord Melchett, myself and other people had to recognise that these reorganisations and developments would bring also certain hard effects in connection with the human factor. The other day the hon. Member for East Leicester (Mr. Wise) raised this question and suggested that when these rationalisation schemes, amalgamation schemes or reorganisation schemes did destroy the chances of labour of persons in the industry, it would be well to accept in general the principles of the scheme propounded by the Melchett Committee and to provide some sustenance or maintenance for the persons so displaced.
The third Part of the Bill relates to hours of labour and takes off one-half of the additional hour which was imposed upon the miners in a time of disaster and trouble. I am convinced that this partial restoration will help to wipe out the memory of an incident which is best forgotten, if forgotten it can be. There is another reason which calls for consideration. Work in many pits has become more arduous and concentrated by the mechanisation established and constantly developed. The increased output per man is in itself a case for regulating the hours of labour downwards, so that many of the unemployed miners may expect a job or the chance of a job in the reorganisation. It would be far better to reduce the hours so as to absorb many of those brave people who, if no employment can be found for them, will go down into the gutter of despair. I am still a convinced believer in the reduction of the working hours per person per day as one means of absorbing unemployed persons. An expert in the coal trade has said that even the half-hour which has been restored to the miners may mean a few thousands more men being employed in the coal mines. I hope that on that ground alone hon. Members opposite will withdraw their opposition to the Bill.
It has been said by some coal experts that plans can be adopted by careful management, and employing a body of satisfied workers, by which the economic value of a pit can be maintained. Anyhow, it is half-an-hour of human justice to as fine a body of men as any country can find, and I appreciate very much the remarks of the right hon. Gentleman opposite. Their heroism is proved in every national industrial disaster; their value as workpeople is incontestable; their patriotism is above calculation. But all these virtues are not enough. They need the help of all men of good will to a more rational working day. Some other countries are before us in working hours, but even if they were not Great Britain could, and should, now, as in the past, lead the world in its uplift and human progress. It may be said that this is sentiment and not business, but sentiment is often more godly than logic, and it is certainly time to do away with the stigma of overworked coal getters and remove some of the uneasiness which affects the working population in our mining districts. Now I come to the point that I hoped would have received strong support from the Leader of the Opposition—namely, our National Industrial Board.
This House is asked to confirm by this Third Reading the policy of a National Industrial Board. It may not be called upon to act frequently but it is certainly an instrument that can be used to find the pathway to peace in an industry where many big struggles have disfigured the history of the past. There are good signs of mutual relationships improving. Many of us, whichever side of industry we are on, have no doubt made speeches in our anger, or in our moments of excitement and passion, or under deep emotion and provocation, which we should not have made, and many hon. Members, both inside and outside this House, have been tempted from the paths of conciliation. But, surely in this 30th year of the 20th century, a century of great scientific developments, we can devise better plans than perpetual conflicts or fear of conflicts, and this National Board is certainly one step in that direction. I do not want our fears or our past relations to prevent this machinery being created.
When leading industrialists and leading trade union leaders assembled at
Burlington Gardens, they laid it down as a fundamental of industrial peace that organised employers and organised workpeople should meet and argue out the details of industry, and I am pleased that in the coal trade the Miners' Federation and the Mining Association have, through their officers, recently assembled together. I do not care what was the object, the principal thing is that both sides should get together. We cannot have peace without mutual contact and conciliation of spirit. This great national industry used to have in it great men who favoured conciliatory methods. I do not doubt but that to-day there are men on both sides as great as in the past, with the same spirit and the same feelings; and I want to see them harnessed by this Bill in the assistance of the coal industry.
There is in this Bill the principle of arbitration, strengthened by Amendments which have been accepted from the other side. It secures equity between owner and owner and between coalfield and coalfield. The principle of protective safeguards is provided for in the committees to be set up both in the districts and nationally; and it is in its general structure the first step towards rescuing this great basic industry from its present chaotic condition. Every interest that may be affected by changes of price, has its defence in the investigating committee, and every owner is protected by the arbitration clauses. Is it too much to ask this House to give its legal, moral and spiritual support to a Bill destined to improve the condition of the industry so that owners and work-people can be reasonably satisfied in their endeavours to carry on the industry, and to believe also that out of the reconstruction proposals there need not be added one penny to the cost of household fuel, or perhaps any addition to the competitive industries which depend upon coal for their success; and that out of the amalgamations and regulation of production and sale the country can rest assured that the coal industry has been given a help towards its self-regeneration? Let it be sent as improved and amended to another place with the blessings of the House of Commons.

Mr. CULVERWELL: I should like to be the first to congratulate the Secretary for Mines on having preached a most ex-
cellent sermon, full of sentiment, as he admitted, but singularly lacking in logic. He laid particular stress upon the improvements in the Bill which have been carried out as the result of Amendments moved from this side and accepted by the Government. Let me add my tribute, at this point to the courtesy and fair spirit with which the President of the Board of Trade has conducted the Bill through this House. His presence on the Government Front Bench in charge of the Bill has been an invaluable asset. But for him there would have been much greater difficulty in securing the successful passage of this Measure but, whilst admiring his urbanity and courtesy, I cannot agree that he has in any way met the suggestions from this side of the House. He may have accepted a few drafting Amendments but he has accepted practically no Amendment of any substance or importance. It is true that he was forced at the point of the sword to drop one of the Clauses of the Bill, but he did not do so very graciously and only when he found that the forces on which he had relied up to then were temporarily against him. Not only has the President of the Board of Trade not accented our reasoned Amendments designed to improve the Bill but he has actually made our opposition stronger by accepting most objectionable clauses from the party below the Gangway.
There is no secret as to the reason for this Bill. The right hon. Member for Bewdley (Mr. S. Baldwin) dealt with that particular aspect of the situation, and we all know that if the miners' representatives in this House, and the Socialist party as a whole, had not given that pledge so light heartedly, a pledge which won them a great many seats, there would have been no occasion for this Bill. This is a semi-fulfilment of a pledge given designedly and unscrupulously for the purpose of catching votes at the last election. The Government succeeded in catching those votes, but they have done so at the expense of the industry as a whole. They have interfered with the industry just when it was showing signs of recuperation and convalescence; just at a time when it was beginning to show decreasing losses on the sale of coal, in some case, a profit. At a time when it should have been left to itself to try and get over this difficult period the Govern-
ment comes along and, in order to fulfil a pledge, casts this added burden on to the industry as a whole.

Miss WILKINSON: Does the hon. Member object to the Government carrying out its election pledges?

Mr. CULVERWELL: I do not object to the Government trying to carry out their election pledge, and I can only regret that they have not carried out the whole of their pledge. They seem to be content with the fulfilment of half of it What I regret is that the Government, and I have no doubt the hon. Lady also, was so unscrupulous and unmindful of the facts of the situation as to give that pledge at the last election. Great stress has been laid upon the distress which exists in the mining industry and the poverty of the miners, their women and children. We do not deny that for one moment, and we should like to see a great improvement in the mining industry, but at the same time we should not allow our sympathy with the miners to destroy our sense of proportion. It has been suggested that the miners' wages and hours of labour are very much worse than in other countries. Figures have been given by the League of Nations which prove beyond a doubt that not only do the miners' hours compare favourably with those of other countries, but that their wages are considerably higher than in any country which is our competitor in coal.
When we talk about the distress among miners we should realise that the miners who are at work are working under as good or better conditions than those which prevail in Continental countries, and that our attention is focussed upon the distress in the mining industry largely because of the large representation of the mining interest in this House. There is distress in other industries. There is distress in the steel and iron industry, in cotton, and in agriculture, and we should not seek to bolster up the mining industry at the expense of other industries which are in equal distress but have not the same power over the party which is now in power. But how is this Bill going to relieve the distress among the miners? The result of this Bill will be to increase unemployment in the mining areas. The right hon. Member
for Shettleston (Mr. Wheatley) only yesterday made a very pointed speech. He said:
I could take hon. Members to districts in South Wales and elsewhere, where it is not a case of 10, 20 or 30 per cent. of the workers being thrown out and maintained by the insurance fund to which the remainder and the owners and the State would continue to subscribe, but a case where whole districts will be closed clown. If that is not so, then the Debates that have taken place in this House have had no meaning, no knowledge, and no effect."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 1st April, 1930; col. 1235, Vol. 237.]
Of course it is so. The Bill is designed with the object of cutting down the number of workers in the mining industry, not with the idea of increasing them. It is perfectly true that as a result of reducing the hours of labour you may possibly have to take on a few thousand more miners in order to make up for the loss. But one hopes that with the reorganisation of industry this will only be temporary, and permanent unemployment is bound to result from the passage of this Bill. Instead of having 200,000 unemployed miners, with admittedly no prospects of permanent future employment, we shall have a considerably increased number and, therefore, it is quite useless for hon. Members opposite to pretend that this Bill is in any way going to assist the distress among the mining community. It will have another object which has only been appreciated by hon. Members opposite during the course of our discussions. In all probability in many districts as a result of the decrease of hours there will be a decrease in wages. They have no pledge that there will be no decrease of wages. It is true that by giving the industry power to fix a minimum price for coal they hope to make up the extra cost out of the sale price of coal, but in some districts that will be difficult. I anticipate that there will be a very considerable prospect of a decrease in the wages of the miners. All this could have been avoided if they had accepted a one-Clause Bill proposed from this side, which, instead of fulfilling the actual pledge which hon. Members opposite gave at the last election, would have given a reduced number of hours to the mining industry, and at very little or no cost to the industry as a whole. The miners' Members have rejected that offer, and—

Mr. TOM SMITH: Assuming that that had been done, will the hon. Member explain where the revenue would have come from?

Mr. CULVERWELL: I am afraid I do not understand the hon. Member's question.

Mr. SPEAKER: At this stage of the Debate, I had better remind hon. Members that this question of the 90-hour fortnight is not in the Bill, and that, on the Third Reading stage, we cannot discuss subjects that are not then contained in the Bill itself.

Mr. CULVERWELL: I defer to your Ruling, Sir, and I only mentioned the 90-hour fortnight and the spread-over of hours to show how easy it would have been to avoid all this complicated and vicious legislation by adopting the sensible and well reasoned suggestion which came from this side. Rather than do that, hon. Members have abandoned all their Free Trade principles, and have set out to tax the raw material and the essence of the industries and the consumers of this country. I cannot imagine for a moment why, if they are prepared to tax coal in this way, they should refuse to tax food. If they are prepared to tax the community in the interests of the miners, why do they refuse to tax the community in the interests of the steel workers, which is what we, on this side, have asked them to do? I cannot see any difference between the two suggestions. Hon. Members opposite have put a tax upon the raw material of every industry of this country. They are deliberately setting out to exploit the consumers of coal in this country, in order to pay for the pledges which they gave at the last election, and it is for that reason that we so deplore the passage of this Bill.
Before sitting down, I should like to make a passing reference to the attitude of the Liberal party during the passage of this Bill. In the middle of the discussions they began to give a somewhat belated consideration to the Naval Conference, and the explanation of the right hon. Member for Darwen (Sir H. Samuel) was a pitiful exhibition and one that made him the laughing stock of this House. The Liberal party, which de-
nounced this Bill when it was first introduced as containing the most vicious principles, as being an attack upon the consumers of this country, and as giving undue power to the owners and miners in the industry, have now, for their own reasons—reasons which are known to many of us and which are certainly not reasons which we can admire—withdrawn their opposition to the Bill, and are prepared to go back on their principles for the sake of expediency. I only hope that when the evil effects of this Bill become apparent, as they will, the Liberal party will, in honesty, share the blame with the party opposite exactly as they have taken credit during the passage of the Bill.

Mr. SUTTON: I should like to say a few words in support of the Third Reading of this Bill. It is not very often that I get up in this House to speak, but I feel on this occasion that I should like to congratulate my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade on the very able manner in which he has piloted this Bill through the House. I think he has done exceptionally well. It is quite true that he has been pulled to pieces from time to time, occasionally by the Liberal party, in a mild way, but more particularly by the Tory party. I can understand the party opposite, because they have never, during my time in this House seemed to go anywhere near where the miners could get an improvement in their position. The Leader of the Opposition to-day praised the miners as being second to none in this country, but I wish he had thought of that in 1926, when he assisted the coalowners to increase the hours of miners and also to reduce their wages. The Leader of the Opposition says that politics and business do not go hand in hand. I quite agree that Tory politics and business do not go hand in hand.
I am strongly of opinion, having been connected with the miners for over 50 years, and having been in half-a-dozen or more disputes since 1881, that this Bill will go in the direction of attaining peace in the mining industry in the future. So far as the reduction of a half-hour is concerned, that is most necessary, and I think the President of the Board of Trade should be congratulated on taking a very mild step indeed. He was not as rash
as the Opposition when they were in power and put an hour on the working day, and he did not take a full hour off again, as we promised we would do, but a little reasonableness has prevailed since then, and the right hon. Gentleman has only gone for the half-hour instead of the whole hour. I believe that that half-hour, when it comes off, will be of benefit to the miners, and I am hoping that in July, 1931, the other half-hour reduction will take place as well.
Some 29 years ago we established what was termed a miners' international conference for the reason that the Continental miners in those days were working two, three, and four hours per day longer than the British miners, and their wages were much lower as well. I am sorry to say that, while our hours in this country were much lower than the Continental miners' hours in those days, the British miners' hours to-day are longer than the Continental miners' hours. Therefore, in this country the mining industry has gone back, instead of going forward, as it has on the Continent. I remember the late Lord Oxford introducing the Minimum Wage Bill in this House, and when it was opposed from the benches opposite, the late Lord Oxford said that the mining industry was an industry which was very different from any industry working on the surface, seeing that the miners had to work down below. The reduction of hours in my opinion, will be of great benefit to our men. Then we are to have an industrial board set up, and that also will be a great blessing. Those of us who have been in disputes for the last 50 years are hoping that we shall never have any more disputes in the mining industry, and if the men and the employers will only show a reasonable spirit, I believe that peace will obtain in the future.
I ask the House to support this Bill, because I believe that it will be a step in the right direction. The ex-Prime Minister said he thought this was a leap in the dark. Well, we cannot be any worse off than we are at the present time. Hours are long, and I should like the House to remember that while to-day we have an eight-hours day, in some of the collieries that I have been looking after the men are down nine and a-half and in some cases 10 hours a day. It
does not mean an eight-hours day at all, but a nine and a-half or a 10 hours day. When we speak of a seven-hours working day, it means eight and a-half and nine hours, but the country, I believe, thinks it means a bare seven hours. Therefore, I trust that the House will give the Third Reading to this Bill without any opposition, with complete unanimity, and let us go on the right road for attaining peace and improving the conditions of the miners of this country.

Mr. CLEMENT DAVIES: I should like to join in the general chorus of praise with which the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade has been greeted, and as one who has had some little share in working on this Bill and suggesting Amendments, I should like to say, here and now, that on all occasions I and everyone else have received nothing but the greatest courtesy at his hands. One realises that there are as many opinions about the various parts of this Bill as there are Members in this House, but we are all agreed that the Bill as it stands is certainly not the Bill which was introduced in this House last December. It has been greatly modified, and I was surprised at the hon. Member for West Bristol (Mr. Culverwell) charging the President of the Board of Trade with not being ready to accept Amendments. I believe that not only has every constructive suggestion which has been put before him been considered, but that he has gone out of his way to accept some of them.
We, on these benches have been charged with a lack of consistency, a charge which I should have thought lay rather at the door of hon. and right hon. Members above the Gangway for their attitude towards Part I of the Bill. From the outset, we have disliked that Part as being a protective Measure which was not required, but they welcome it now and taunt us with the fact that it is a protective Measure, intended to protect certain owners in a certain industry, and yet they have steadily voted against every part of it. I should like to emphasise Part III of the Bill, as it is now, which decreases the hours of the miners. Without a doubt that is the Part of the Bill which brought the Bill into being, and I am surprised to find hon. Members above the Gangway taunting hon. Members opposite with bringing in that Part
of the Bill in order to fulfil pledges. I should have thought that it was not a fault, but a matter for praise, that people who give pledges should do their best afterwards to carry them out.
5.0 p.m.
It is not merely in order to fulfil pledges that this Part of the Bill has been introduced. It has been introduced as a real necessity, because of the circumstances under which the miners are working, and, so far as we are concerned, one remembers with gratitude that it was a Liberal Government which brought in the eight-hours day for Scotland and reduced the hours in certain mining areas from 10 to eight. When that was done, the same suggestion was made then as is made now. It was said, "You will ruin the industry, you will increase the price of coal, and you will be throwing that increase of price upon the consumer." Those gloomy prophecies are always made when you are doing your best to help the people who are giving their time and their lives in order to produce this raw material. The same charge has been made now as was made then. These gloomy prophecies were not fulfilled. It was said that if you reduced the hours from 10 to eight, the effect would be to decrease production, but within a year or two after that Measure had been passed we reached the peak year of production, in 1913. It was, again, a Coalition Government which introduced the Measure reducing the hours from eight to seven. Again the gloomy prophecies were made, and again they were disproved. Why should you always subordinate the men to the industry rather than subordinate the industry to the men? If the industry cannot afford to pay the wages, unless the men are kept in the mines for over seven or eight hours—and even now, according to the last speaker, the hours are eight and a-half to nine—then I say that there is something wrong with the industry.
With regard to the changes made and accepted by the right hon. Gentleman, we realise that it may be said that if you reduce the hours, prices may be increased. We do not think that prices will be increased as much as has been said, but let us admit that argument. The right hon. Gentleman has shown himself ready to introduce Part I to cover part of that increased cost. Speaking for myself, I still dislike Part I, but I
do not dislike it as much as I did, and for these reasons. [An Hon. MEMBER: "The Naval Conference!"] No, not necessarily the Naval Conference, but we know that the right hon. Gentleman has introduced Amendments which have done away with a great number of the Amendments that were there originally. May I remind the House of some? First of all, it is clear that export coal may be treated as a separate class, and it is clear that if the district board or the central council think that the quota on the export trade shall not be cut down it will not be cut down. Secondly, certain pits will be protected, if required. That was covered by an Amendment which was accepted the day before yesterday. Thirdly, where special circumstances are met with in the case of the steel industry, or by-product works, or coking ovens attached to a pit, those special circumstances shall be considered in assessing the standard capacity of a mine or the quota allocated in a district. Fourthly, instead of fixing a standard capacity haphazard, the board or the council will have to consider the economic and efficient working of a pit, whether new or old. These Amendments which the right hon. Gentleman accepted have made a great difference in Part I. He has even gone further and admitted, quite frankly, that Part I is an experiment. His prophecies with regard to that may be right or they may turn out to be wrong. At any rate, there cannot be in time two opinions about it. There may be now, but time will show whether he is right or we are right.
The right hon. Gentleman has fairly said, "I will limit the time of the experiment to a bare two years," and in doing so he has been most fair, and has met the greater part of the criticism advanced from these benches. He has also provided for arbitration, so that anyone, consumer or coalowner, whether a coalowner had an objection to the quota or standard capacity, or the consumer to the price, everyone who has a grievance may have his grievance placed before an arbitral tribunal. The result is that our objections cannot be as great now as they were when the Bill was originally introduced. Further, while the President of the Board of Trade admits that this is a temporary solution, he has admitted that there is a permanent solution, which
he himself has accepted and placed is another part of the Bill. We think that in one way, and one way only, can this industry pay its way and provide increased wages, work more efficiently and increase its profits, and that is by doing away with artificial barriers above and below the land. Rationalise and unify if you like, but put the districts in the position to work in a proper way, and provide a solution which will permanently reduce hours and increase wages. For all these reasons, I welcome that part of the Bill, and I hope that when it reaches another place the Government will take the same view with regard to that part that they have taken with regard to the other parts.

Mr. CHARLES BROWN: I have listened, I think, to nearly the whole of the Debates in connection with the Coal Mines Bill, and although I represent in this House a large mining constituency, I have only intervened on one occasion for a few minutes. Naturally, I have been very much interested in the arguments we have heard from time to time both for the Bill and against it. An hon. Member on the other side who followed the Secretary for Mines referred to the speech as being a sermon lacking in logic. I would remind him that if that be true, it is not the only sermon lacking in logic which has been delivered during the Debate. There have been others, and not from this side either. Generally speaking, it has been very convenient for Members opposite to ignore the circumstances which have made this Bill necessary, but occasionally there have crept into some of the speeches of hon. Members opposite indications that they were not altogether devoid of responsibility for the condition of the coal industry to-day. For instance, one hon. Member last night began his speech by the well-known quotation:
The evil that men do lives after them.
I imagine he was not thinking of the possible consequences of the Measure we are now discussing, but was really troubled by a guilty conscience, because he understood that the situation with which we have to deal was due to the evil perpetrated by his own party during the recent history of the mining industry.
The hon. and gallant Member for North Leeds (Captain Peake), speaking last
night, said that the Bill was introduced because of pledges which had been given to the miners in the recent election. I wonder how long it is since it became the wrong thing to make pledges when election campaigns were on. It may not be a very nice thing for hon. Members opposite to recall the fact that in certain mining constituencies there were Conservative candidates who made pledges to the miners in their election speeches. I well remember many of these pledges, because I had to read them. This was one of the pledges they made to miners as a guarantee of some sort of prosperity for the mining industry: "We are living in a country which imports 3,000,000 tons of iron and steel every year. Let us put on Safeguarding duties."

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Mr. Robert Young): The hon. Member is confined now to what is in the Bill, and must not deal with election promises.

Mr. BROWN: I, of course, accept your Ruling. I was only pointing out that hon. Members on the other side introduced the question of pledges we made during the election in regard to miners' hours, and I was illustrating the fact that they also made pledges.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: He was entitled to refer to pledges, but he must not go into these pledges on the Third Reading of this Bill.

Mr. BROWN: I shall have to obey your Ruling and leave out my point. It would be convenient to Members apposite that I should not deal with this.

Mr. SULLIVAN: On a point of Order. Members opposite referred to pledges on the Third Reading.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: That is different from pledges relating to hours. Safeguarding of iron and steel has nothing to do with this Bill.

Mr. SULLIVAN: Yes, but that was brought in by the other side on the Third Reading.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: I am dealing with what is the general practice of the House. Members are confined to the points in the Bill on the Third Reading.

Mr. BROWN: I will refrain from further reference to that, and I will turn to a theme which has been developed
a great deal by Members opposite. A prevailing argument has been the one that this Bill would be responsible for the raising of the price of coal. I do not understand why Members of the Conservative party scoff and deride Members of the Liberal party. They should be grateful to them. After all, it was the right hon. Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George) in that magnificent speech in the Second Reading Debate, who really coined this phrase about dear coal. I shall never forget the passage in which he did it. It is one of those things that lives in one's mind. I remember he said on that morning that he had looked through the window and had seen the ground covered with hoar frost and said to himself, "This is not a day on which I can go to the House of Commons and vote for a dear coal Bill." That phrase has been the theme of the majority of the speeches of the other side. Of course the right hon. Member for Epping (Mr. Churchill) on the same evening, tried to go one better than the right hon. Member for Carnarvon Boroughs, for he drew for us a vivid picture of the poor widow frying cheap steaks over a dear fire. That is another of the remarkable phrases that will live in one's memory. We would not have regarded it, perhaps, in a cynical way if we had not recalled that the party opposite, only a few weeks before, were doing everything they could to prevent the Government from assisting the widows with whom they sympathised on this occasion.
The right hon. Member for Carnarvon Boroughs has set many balls rolling in his time, and they have rolled far, but some that he has set rolling have not rolled far. I do not think the one in regard to dear coal will roll far. I am sceptical about dear coal so far as this Bill is concerned. I was at a public function a short time ago in my own constituency, where the guest of the evening was a gentleman regarded as an economic expert and a great leader of industry, and he used the occasion to make a speech in regard to the Coal Mines Bill, and was more or less critical of the Bill. He said that this Bill would increase the price of coal by about 2s. 6d. a ton. Various other prices have been mentioned as possible owing to the operation of this Measure, but, as I say I am rather scepti-
cal, because the gentleman of whom I am speaking is the head of a certain organisation, and even when he was speaking he had purchased coal, at current prices, for the industrial undertakings of which he is the head, up to June, 1931. Obviously, if the coalowners imagined that under this Measure they were likely to get a much increased price, they would not have made contracts at current prices for such a long time ahead.

Sir ROBERT HORNE: The gentleman to whom the hon. Member refers was protecting himself against future high prices.

Mr. BROWN: I am not talking about what he did; I am calling attention to the fact that the coalowners were willing to enter into these contracts with him. That is the important point, and not the far-sightedness of the individual to whom I have referred. I leave the question of dear coal for the moment and turn to the question of hours. The hon. and gallant Member for North Leeds deplored what he thought would be the probable ill effects of the Bill in regard to hours, and he spoke of the industry as a sick industry which was just emerging into a state of convalescence when this Measure was introduced. The hon. and gallant Member's party had a very curious method of dealing with this sick industry because they said to the people on whom its very existence depends, "Yes, you are in a bad way but all we can do for you is to make you work longer and harder." In fact the action which they took had that result.
Reference has also been made to the fact that in many parts of the coalfields there are newer and deeper pits, which are very hot, and in which the working conditions grow more and more exacting. At such pits only the strongest men can endure the conditions for long, and consequently there goes on a ruthless process of selection. I have in mind a colliery to which batches of men have been sent periodically by the local Employment Exchange. When the men reach that colliery, the ruthless process of selection is applied to them, and they are asked such questions as this: "Have you ever received compensation?" What miner is there who, for some minor injury, at some time or other, has not received
compensation? But if the answer in this case happened to be in the affirmative, that particular man could never hope for employment at that colliery. I call attention to this case in order to stress the importance of reducing miners' hours. We have also reached the stage in some parts of the coalfields in which men are considered to be too old at 45. If a man has worked for a number of years in a colliery, he may be 50, or 55, or even 60, and as long as he retains his job there he is all right; but let him get out of that job, and he cannot get another one at any of the newer collieries. Too old at 45! That is the condition which we have reached, and only the ablest, the strongest, and the fittest can hope to find employment nowadays under the new conditions.
This Bill sets up a National Industrial Board from which we hope for much, and I entirely agree with an hon. Member who spoke a little while ago and who expressed the hope that we had seen the last of those struggles between miners and coalowners which have occurred at various periods. But I wonder if the party opposite will ever come to understand that the industrial upheavals which they so much deplore are not the results of action by agitators, and are not due to the existence of trade unions but arise entirely from the bad social conditions under which large numbers of the people have to live and from a burning sense of economic injustice. So long as that economic injustice and those bad social conditions exist, so long must we continue to have these upheavals from time to time.
The hon. and gallant Member for North Leeds called our attention to the advance which has taken place under the present system of ownership and made that the basis of a suggestion that nothing at all should be done in regard to the mining industry at the moment. We do not deny that there has been material progress. Poverty and wealth are relative terms. We are quite prepared to admit that, and we do not deny that material progress has brought advantages to the working classes but we are entitled to call attention to the fact that, in relation to the increased capacity for producing wealth which exists to-day,
the masses are poor indeed. They might be very much better off than they are. What a welter of Chaos and confusion our economic system is, and yet any attempt to bring order out of that chaos is strongly opposed by hon. Members opposite. During the last few weeks a number of hon. Members on the other side have attempted to build up reputations as defenders of liberty. They have peen talking incessantly about religious persecution in Russia. Now the reports of religious persecution in Russia—

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: I have already pointed out to the hon. Member that on the Third Reading we can only discuss exactly what is in the Bill.

Mr. BROWN: I am now discussing the Industrial Board which, it is hoped, will lead to pacification between the miners and the mineowners.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: The hon. Member was referring to religious persecution in Russia which is very far away from the subject matter of this Bill.

Mr. BROWN: I was only introducing that as an illustration of a point which I wished to make in regard to the Industrial Board and the matters which will come under its attention. I was pointing out that hon. Members opposite have been trying to gain reputations as the friends and defenders of liberty, and knowing that they are all aglow with a passion for liberty at this moment, I was going to invite them to come with me into the coalfields of Nottinghamshire and to remind them that there are other forms of liberty which people cherish besides religious liberty. There is such a thing as political and economic liberty—the freedom to express one's opinion, the freedom to do as one would wish. I do not know if hon. Members are aware that in the case of some of the newer collieries in the north-east Midlands it is possible to find a mining village owned entirely by coalowners, where the first charge on a miner's wages is the rent of the house in which he lives, and where frequently, when that rent has been paid, a man goes home with 10s. or 15s. or £1 a week. Worse than that—they dare not be known to associate themselves openly with the Labour and Trade Union movement. That is a crime, I say, in the England of to-day and hon.
Members opposite in their new enthusiasm for liberty—especially as we are now living in a period of great crusades—might join us in seeking to bring about a better condition of affairs in the part of the world from which I come. I hope that this Bill will have the result [...] improving matters for the mining population of this island because the miners are surely entitled to have some care shown for their homes, for their children and for their future; and if we cannot achieve our object along these lines, then we shall have to proceed along some other lines in order to bring to fruition the efforts which we have been making for many years past.

Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I join with the Leader of the Opposition in paying a tribute to the Parliamentary dexterity and good humour with which the President of the Board of Trade has piloted through an extraordinarily difficult Bill under very difficult conditions. The right hon. Gentleman undoubtedly added to a Parliamentary reputation which was already very considerable—a reputation won by sterling merit in his contributions to the Debates in this House. As I may have been, perhaps, a little too severe on the hon. Gentleman the Secretary for Mines, in the Debate on the Second Reading, may I say that he also contributed by his supreme good humour and geniality to the passage of this Bill. His benignity made us feel that there was surely nothing very harmful to anybody in a Bill with which he was associated. He beamed good will upon us, and, even when he was not taking part in the Debate, he was a sort of beam wireless in communicating his thoughts to the House.
With regard to the Third Reading of the Bill, Members on these benches take up exactly the same attitude as that which they took on the Second Reading. We will not depart in the least from that position. In the speech delivered by my right hon. Friend the Member for Darwen (Sir H. Samuel) on the Second Reading, and in the speech which I subsequently delivered in the course of the same Debate, we both made it quite clear that, if four points which we elaborated and stated to the House, were accepted by the Government, and if the Government could promise to introduce Amendments in reference to those four
points, we, while not accepting any responsibility for the Bill itself, would abstain from taking any part in the Division. That was the promise which we made on the Second Reading, and, that promise having now been redeemed, we are in exactly the same position as we were in on the Second Reading. There has been no change in our attitude in that respect. It has already been declared to the House that if we had been asked for a solution of this extraordinarily difficult problem this is not the angle from which we would have approached it, but, the Government having taken this line, we made suggestions with regard to four cardinal points, and my right hon. Friend and myself stated emphatically that, if those four points were conceded, we should not vote against the Second Reading of the Bill. That is exactly our attitude with regard to the Third Reading. We have not departed the least from it.
I do not see the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Ogmore (Mr. Hartshorn) in his place, but I wish to take this opportunity of dealing with one point which he made in my absence. I am not complaining of that, because I happened to be absent temporarily when he was making his speech, but he brought something tantamount to a charge of breach of faith against us. In fact, we have been open, as a middle party always is, to attacks from both sides and the charge brought by hon. and right hon. Gentlemen above the Gangway against us was that we were not supporting every Amendment against the Bill, while the complaint of the right hon. Gentleman opposite against us was that we should support any Amendment against the Bill in Committee, after the Government had accepted the four points laid dawn by us. Although I am not sure that he used the exact phrase, he almost indicated that we had been guilty of a breach of faith. Let me give him two answers to that charge, because it is the sort of charge that ought to be answered. My first answer is that the Government did not accept these four points on the Second Reading, and, therefore, in so far as any Parliamentary arrangement was concerned, it dropped with the fact that the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill could not see his way to accept those four points on the Second Reading. The
second point is this. In my speech on the Second Reading, I made it quite clear, and I can read to the right hon. Gentleman the words if he doubts it, that if the Government accepted those four propositions, the party with which I am associated would be free in Committee, even then, to move Amendments on other points of the Bill. I made that quite clear. I am only putting that point in order to make it clear to the House that we were not guilty of a breach of faith in proceeding—

Mr. HARTSHORN: I know that the right hon. Gentleman does not wish to misrepresent what I said. I was dealing with the quota question in Part I. I pointed out that the right hon. Gentleman, in the Second Reading Debate, put up four suggestions, one of which was that Part I should be limited in its operation, but that point has been met; and then, the Government having agreed to limit it in accordance with the suggestion of the Liberal party, they suggested that Part I should be abolished altogether. That is the point I made, and I do not think that it was an unfair point.

Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: If the right hon. Gentleman was simply putting that as a debating point, I have nothing more to say, but if he was putting it as a charge of a breach of faith, I want to make it quite clear that I stated on Second Reading that, even if the four points were accepted by the Government, we should regard ourselves as free to move Amendments to other parts. If, however, the right hon. Gentleman puts it as a debating point, that has passed now, and there is no further need for me to clear up that point. I have come to the four points which we laid down in the course of the Second Reading Debate. The first was that there should be provisions for compulsory amalgamation introduced into the Bill. That has been done. The second was that amalgamations should be on the basis of the present valuation of the mines, or, as I put it subsequently, that the value for the purposes of amalgamation should be on the basis of the real value of the mines, without taking into account the artificial values created by the Bill. Those two points have been met by the right hon. Gentleman in the course of the proposals which he has put down.
The third point put by my right hon. Friend and myself, and to which we attached very great importance, was that the provisions with regard to marketing, quotas, prices and so forth, should be temporary, merely to tide over a difficult period, and have a short time limit. The right hon. Gentleman, first of all, met us in that respect by reducing the time to three years. He has met us still further in the course of the Committee by reducing it to two years. The fourth point put by my right hon. Friend the Member for Darwen was, "Are they prepared to secure that, if powers are given to secure fixed prices, there will be a really effective control of prices in the public interest?" The right hon. Gentleman has accepted the suggestion which we made repeatedly, both to him and in the discussions in the House, that there should be some form of arbitral tribunal interposed; and not only that, but that the mineowners should be obliged to take cognisance of the award of that body with regard to prices, and comply with the award.
Therefore, I think it is right that I should say that the right hon. Gentleman has very adequately met the four points which we made in the course of the Second Reading Debate. If he had promised them then, we should certainly not have voted against the Second Reading, and we said so repeatedly in the course of that Debate. Since then, there have been two or three Amendments of considerable importance. There is the further reduction of the term from three to two years, and there is the very important Amendment moved by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Montgomeryshire (Mr. C. Davies), to which we all attach very great importance, and which, incidentally, meets the point which the Leader of the Opposition made to-day. The right hon. Gentleman, obviously, had overlooked that. I am afraid that he based his criticism of the Bill upon its original form, and did not take into account the Amendment which has since been introduced. The Amendment of my hon. and learned Friend deals specifically with the case of the iron and steel trade, and also with the single pit. Those things can be taken into account in the fixing of quotas and prices. There is a specific provision which covers that case. It is an Amend-
ment of considerable importance, and when it was passing through Committee, I do not think that the right hon. Gentlemen here and the hon. Gentlemen behind them fully appreciated the value of that concession made by the Government.
I do not pretend that the Government have met us in every detail. As I made clear in the course of the Debate in Committee, I object very strongly to the restriction of output. I have never thought it possible to cut down hours of labour without some temporary increase of prices until the industry has been reconstructed; but that was an increase in prices which has been the natural and inevitable result of the diminution of the hours of labour. I have always considered that the restriction of output brought an artificial increase which was quite unjustifiable. The right hon. Gentleman has undoubtedly altered the position considerably by reducing the term during which that can be done to two years, which is the period which will probably be taken in reconstruction. I would like to say this to the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition: I am sorry that he is not present, but I understood that he would be at another engagement, and I make no point of his absence. He criticised these provisions, utterly oblivious of the fact that he was the man who was responsible for introducing the Act of 1926.
There are two points in that Act which he has completely ignored. The first is that automatically next year the hours of labour will come down to seven. The present Government have cut down the hours of labour by half an hour this year, having anticipated the reduction of next year by the cutting down of half an hour; but the party that is responsible for the reduction from eight to seven is the party that was responsible for introducing the Act of 1926 and for fixing the reduction definitely to seven hours in 1931. Did they mean that or did they not? The second point is that the right hon. Gentleman criticised compulsory amalgamation. Compulsory amalgamations are introduced, not merely as a principle, but as a matter of machinery in the Act of 1926, and he certainly has no right to criticise it. In the 1926 Act there is a right to override reluctant owners by compulsion, but he criticises it as if it were an absolutely new principle introduced for
the first time in the Committee of the House of Commons in 1930. He introduced it; he was responsible. The principle of compulsory amalgamation is one which he definitely enshrined in an Act of Parliament, for which he was personally responsible. It is perfectly true that it is a very bad Act. Is he going to say that it was so badly drafted that it has never been operative? If he does, he ought to be the first man to say, "I am sorry we have introduced a principle of compulsory amalgamation which has been futile, which has been nugatory, and which has not been of the slightest use, and I am glad that the Government have amended it in order to make it work".
But his party cannot complain. They are the last people to complain of the increase of prices, which is due directly to the reduction of hours, and I have never at any time in the course of these discussions challenged the action of the Government in setting up machinery which would meet that particular case. The right hon. Gentleman knows that that is so both in our private discussions, as well as in the part which I have taken here. They cannot complain of it. They are responsible for it, and rightly so. I supported that part of the Bill in 1926. They cannot challenge the principle of compulsory amalgamation, for they initiated it by the Act of 1926. The right hon. Gentleman refers to certain financial amalgamations which have turned out to be a failure, but these were voluntary amalgamations, full of "boodle." That is exactly why compulsion has been introduced. If you are going to depend entirely on beckoning them to come along, and to persuading them, each one of them will exact the biggest price he can, and then those who operate the whole thing will want something for their trouble—and they have got a good deal. You have only to see how the shares are standing in the markets to-day to see that the whole thing has been on an extravagant basis, and that is the full justification of compulsory amalgamation.
My right hon. Friend gave me a letter which he had received from a very important coalowner upon this very point. I cannot give his name, but he is a man of great ability. This is what he says:
Many arguments has been brought forward against compulsory amalgamation, and people have said that where it is to one or two companies' mutual advantage,
amalgamation ought to take place, but is this so? We find that the thing that enters very largely into a problem of this kind is the personal element. Many people would lose their positions, and others would not lose their work, but become less important. Is it not rather a case of this kind, that voluntary amalgamation is what you can get together, and compulsory amalgamation properly initiated is that which ought to go together. Many schemes of much promise in the past have been rendered ineffective through a failure of getting that amalgamation key position.
That is the answer to the right hon. Gentleman's complaint about amalgamation. I am going to meet another criticism. It was made last night, and has been made to-day. It is: Why have we, having taken such and such a line, and a very strong line, with regard to particular parts of this Bill, not succeeded to the extent of defeating the Government when there was a second challenge? I am going to put that question back. Why did not you? There were two occasions when Members above the Gangway could have defeated this Bill. In December of last year, in spite of abstentions on these benches, there was a sufficient number of Liberal Members who went into the Lobbies against the Second Reading of the Bill that, if the party above the Gangway had had their full muster, they could have beaten it.

Commander Sir BOLTON EYRES MONSELL: I am sorry to interrupt the right hon. Gentleman, but I am sure he does not want to misrepresent our party. It is not true what he said. Unfortunately, we had very many men sick, but I did my utmost to get the biggest number I could here that were not sick. I shall always do my best, to defeat the Government, whatever the right hon. Gentleman and his party may do.

Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: The right hon. Gentleman is the last man in the House that I would criticise. No one has greater admiration for his extraordinary efficiency in his task, and I have had very pleasant experiences of the assistance he has rendered to me. If there was any slackness, it was certainly not due to him, and therefore I am very glad of this opportunity of putting that right. But this is not a charge which I am bringing. This is a charge brought by very important people on his own side. Here is an article in the "Times"—I
think it is the official organ of the hon. and gallant Member's party. [Interruption] I do not know which is the official organ at the moment. This is a criticism by the "Times" in its leading article immediately afterwards:
That a Bill so important as the Coal Mines Bill should obtain its Second Reading by the same means, that [...] merely because of Unionist apathy—
It is not my charge: it is the charge of the "Times" newspaper against right hon. Gentlemen—
is deplorable from the party point of view.
But it goes on to say it is a very good thing.
Nevertheless, it is certainly desirable in the public interest that the Second Reading should be carried.
The reason is such an extraordinary one in face of what was said by the Leader of the Opposition to-day. One of his charges against the Government for bringing in this Bill is that it provokes uncertainty. This is what the "Times" said:
The rejection of the Bill would produce many uncertainties and doubt
They must keep their newspapers in better order! Two occasions! Through no fault of the right hon. Gentleman, but through obvious reluctance! I will quote another comment. There was a very distinguished Member of this House who used to sit up there supporting the Government. He was a good supporter of theirs. I refer to Sir John Marriott, a very able man and a very good Conservative. I read an article of his in the "Fortnightly Review" in which he said:
Absenteeism on the part of Conservative Members has not been due wholly to slackness. It has ball partly due to cowardice—
Cowardice!
and partly to calculation.
Why have right hon. Gentlemen and hon. Gentlemen who did not muster in sufficient numbers and beat the Bill on Second Reading, and on the quota, suddenly become so zealous to defeat the Bill? [Interruption.] The hon. Member can get up afterwards. I will tell the House the reason. It was not desirable! There was great confusion of counsel. To use the elegant phrase of the editor of the "Times," "The monkeys had not been caught." One of them he said was
still at large. But one of them has been caught, and although he is pelting right hon. Gentlemen with peanuts, still, he is securely in his cage for the time being. But they are not sure of him. And they are quite right! I know him! He is rattling his cage very badly; he may break loose; so this is the acceptable time, this is the time to beat the Government. Now! Not in December, not in February, but now! There was cowardice in February; now they are brave, because they have got the monkeys behind them. [Interruption.]
I am answering taunts. I did not start it. No party in this House can afford to taunt another party with disunion. Therefore, I am throwing the taunt back. Why should it be flung at us? There are differences in dogma, and even about leadership, in every party. Every leader is not everybody's fancy. Some fancy others—and a few fancy themselves! And in these days of great self-confidence and tremendous self-assertiveness, when everybody believes that he has got the last remedy for every evil in this world and the next, and is the only man to apply it—well, all the leaders can do is to be tolerant. And we do fairly well, the leaders of all parties—fairly well! We are tolerant and good humoured. The only thing one does not like is when those who disagree with you plaster their brows with phylacteries, as if they were more righteous than others. In the main right hon. Gentlemen and hon. Gentlemen are just considering what suits them best. Before, they thought they had got hold of something that would unite them. They are beginning to discover that they have not, but before—well, slackness! cowardice! Just enough to bring them down to a majority of seven or eight! But you must not turn them out! This is not the time! But now—now they want it! They are suiting themselves. We have considered what is best for the interests of the country.

Sir R. HORNE: We have had one of those astute and ingenious speeches from the right hon. Gentleman to which we all listen with admiration, and which all of us who undertake to reply to them greatly envy; but, from my point of view, the right hon. Gentleman got on very much better in the merry and irrelevant part of his speech than he did when he
was dealing with the problem before us. I thought he was particularly unfortunate in his attempt to justify the course which his party have taken in regard to this Bill. He told us that all of the four desiderata which were before the House on Second Reading have been granted by the Government, and that for that reason the Liberal opposition to the Bill has disappeared.

Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: No, no! I did not say that.

Sir R. HORNE: Opposition in the Lobby.

Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: What I said was this. It is a question now of Third Reading, as it was a question then of Second Reading. I made it quite clear on Second Reading that if the Government promised those four points we would abstain from voting against the Second Reading. We are confronted on the Third Reading with those four incorporated in the Bill.

Sir R. HORNE: It would have been a good thing if my right hon. Friend had thought of those things in connection with some of the vital Amendments with which the House had to deal. If he was so completely satisfied with the attitude of the Government upon all of those four main points upon which he desired satisfaction, it is very difficult to understand why he should go through the ignominy of that ridiculous and futile explanation which he gave to the House with regard to the Naval Conference.
We are now at the end of our procedure on a Bill which is of vital importance to the country. It deals with one of the two greatest of our industries. Coal and agriculture are the basic industries of this country, and the livelihood of the country depends upon them. If coal does not thrive, Britain can never prosper. Therefore, I am sure we all approach this question in a serious attitude and with a desire to get the best results that are obtainable in Parliament. So far as I am concerned, and so far as any influence that I can exercise may be useful, in whatever shape this Bill emerges from Parliament, I can say that we shall do our best to see that it is put into operation in a spirit in which the country will have the opportunity of deriving the very best results from it. But, of course, we differ, and have differed throughout these
discussions, in regard to the process which should be taken to secure that end. The hon. Member for Mansfield (Mr. C. Brown), who made an eloquent speech, said the Bill would bring order out of chaos and bring happier conditions to the lives of the miners. If we thought so, the Bill would have our wholehearted support, and it is only because I do not think it can achieve those results that I have ventured to put forward other points of view.
6.0 p.m.
What is the condition of the coal trade to-day? The coal trade has been the foundation of this country's prosperity, which was maintained by the coal trade up to the time of the War. Since the War there has been a change. The figures show that while the countries which import coal from us have, in the main, been increasing the amount they have been taking, they have, in fact, been taking less from us than from other countries. The reason for our difficulty
is that we have not been maintaining the proportion of our exports which we used to send to other countries. The reason for that is not because the demand for coal is going down, but because of our difficulty in selling coal has been greater. What are the reasons for these difficulties? I think those who look back to the Versailles Treaty must acknowledge that the stipulation by which part of the reparations was paid in coal was bad for this country and bad for the coal industry. In addition, there has been a desire on the part of other countries to become independent of outside sources, and get as much coal within their own territories as they can. In the third place, we had another arrangement at the Versailles Conference with regard to the Polish corridor by which you shift all the cheaply got Polish coal from Danzig into the Baltic, and thus destroy many of the markets which we previously held.
There is another element which I hope the House will not forget. One of the things which did us harm was our shortened production and higher prices during the War. There is no doubt that the high prices which we were charging the rest of the world created a feeling of animosity, and a determination to render themselves independent of us in the future. I think everybody who looks at
this matter dispassionately will come to the conclusion that to some extent our higher prices were due to shortened hours, and I say that after the most complete and impartial examination that I have been able to make. I think it will be found that it is those countries which were working longer hours than this country which have taken the markets which we used to hold, and that it is unquestionable that any dispassionate examination of the figures will establish that conclusion.
Let me say that I think far too much criticism has been made will regard to the administration and management of the coal industry in this country. You do not find in any other country in the world people criticising the administration of the coal industry as they do in this country. The coal industry in this country has been subjected to a process of limelight which no other industry in the world has had to undergo, and most of the other industries in this country would have come just as badly out of such an examination as the coal industry has done. This process of investigation by commission has been going on steadily ever since the War ceased, and I am surprised that the people who have been so much occupied in appearing as witnesses before Commissions have had time enough to devote to the industry to make it as good as it is at the present time. Nobody can say, looking at the last few years, that the coal trade has been doing badly. If we look back to the year 1929, we find the recovery of the industry has been quite remarkable, and you will find that in a time of very great distress and trouble in the world we have increased our coal output by 20,000,000 tons. During the same period we have increased our exports of coal by 10,000,000 tons; and whereas the proportion of exports that we had in relation to the rest of the world in the ordinary export market went down from 17 per cent. in 1913 to 10 per cent. in 1928, last year it. went up to 11.8 per cent. All that is to the good.
I was one of those along with many others who thought that the coal trade had taken a turn which was going to lead us into a position of gradually achieving prosperity for this country, and for that reason I deprecate the interference which is now going to take place. I am one of those who do not agree
with the President of the Board of Trade that the world is going to demand less coal. It is going to demand more coal, and the progress of science in this matter is going to require a larger output of coal in the world. I believe that coal in comparison with other forms of fuel is going to come back into its own again. Surely it is a pity to interfere with a trade which has made this complete turn round, and which is advancing towards better things in the future. I know that the Government were in a difficult position, and I entirely sympathise with the necessity which they found for taking up the hours question. They were so committed, in consequence of the election, that it was impossible for them to meet Parliament and not to deal with this question in some shape or form.
It is admitted that the decrease from eight to seven and a-half hours will have the result of putting up the cost of a ton of coal by 1s. 6d. or thereabouts, or between 9d. and 1s. 6d., and certainly the increase will be 1s. 6d. per ton in some of the districts which require the most help. How is that increase of price going to be met? I put forward a proposal during the Committee stage which, of course, it would not be in order for me to discuss now, but it was a proposal which I hope was not entirely put aside. I say no more now, because I understand that conversations are going on upon that matter at the present time. I would like to say, however, that I believe, if that proposal could be adopted, the other methods which this Bill brings into play could be entirely dispensed with. [Interruption.] I am not going to discuss that point now. Hon. Members opposite are perfectly aware of what their representatives are doing in regard to it. At any rate, the attention which is being given to that proposal at the present time discloses the fact that it was at least worth more consideration than was given to it during the Committee stage. I am very anxious about some mitigating process such as that to which I have referred because I think it is inevitable that the arrangements made under Part I of the Bill will reduce the supply of coal, and will not tend in any way, in the end, to meet the additional cost which is going to be imposed by shortened hours, and therefore I think that any other devices
that could have been adopted would have been advantageous.
Now I come to one or two of the matters which the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs has dealt with. There is the question of compulsory amalgamation. I do not think that my right hon. Friend quite appreciated the point of view expressed by the Leader of the Opposition. It is not because the financial magnates were brought in to deal with amalgamations that various amalgamations have not done so well as perhaps they might have done. The real crux of the matter is this: I am not going to deal with the principle which I dealt with when I argued this matter in Committee, but I would like to say that amalgamations get the very best chance of success when they are initiated by the people who are themselves concerned, and that was the reason which my right hon. Friend gave when Parliament was asked to place the Act of 1926 on the Statute Book. The reason given at that time was that voluntary action on the part of the collieries gave the greatest possible chance of success in the direction desired. It is when you have outside people, whether financers or peripatetic chartered accountants, or lawyers, or whatever this commission may be composed of, people without intimate knowledge of the conditions and no knowledge of the personnel—it is when such influences are brought to bear that you lose the advantages which amalgamation would ordinarily give. It is from that point of view that we on this side of the House do not believe that any good effect can come from compulsory amalgamation—that indeed it will give rise to a great deal of trouble rather than benefit.
I am not, in principle, averse to the regulation of production in the coal industry or in any other industry on the voluntary principle. At the present time. we know that there is over production of a very large number of things, and one of the great difficulties with which the world is faced to-day is the state of over production in regard to such commodities as tea, sugar, lead, zinc, coal, wool and other articles. A considerable part of our difficulties at the present time is really due to that fact. At the present time—let me avow it to the House—I am
a party to the regulation of production in an industry of high importance, but it is a voluntary arrangement, and it is when the regulation of production passes from a voluntary to a compulsory arrangement that I object. Under a voluntary arrangement the bonds which unite those who come together to regulate production are so loose that they can never be abused. For example, any attempt to make a very rigid limitation of production would defeat itself, and any attempt to raise the price to the consumer would be immediately defeated. In any of these voluntary arrangements we never get everybody into the ring, and there are always some people outside, and they are what my right hon. Friend would call weak sellers, but they tend to prevent the abuse of any such regulation of production as might come about under the system which has been put before us.
In this Bill, you have an entirely different situation. Under this Measure, you have a rigid compulsitur which brings everybody into the producing ring. That system compels all to act in unison, and it creates apprehensions which no voluntary system could ever bring about. Let me give an illustration to the House which came before me only a very few weeks ago. Some people here who were proposing to inquire about the opening up of a very large and beneficial coalfield in this country, were entirely deterred when they saw the provisions of this Bill, and they are not going forward with that proposal, because, as one of them explained to me, they do not know whether they could ever get a quota, how much it would be, or upon what terms they could get it. As new people coming into a district where already there is a large number of coalowners, they recognise that they would not be welcome. That is one of the results which you get from giving statutory effect to a quota system into which every coalowner already existing is bound to come, and into which new people who propose to open up new fields may find it very difficult to get any sort of entry.
I want the House to realise the kind of principle we are adopting when we embark upon the quota provisions which the President of the Board of Trade has put forward, because that system is
subject to all the difficulties which have been expressed as eloquently from the Liberal Benches as from any other benches in this House. For my part, while, as I say, I have no objection at all to the voluntary regulation of production in order that the markets shall not be overfilled with goods that are not wanted, and which are a great waste in every conception of industry, I cannot by any chance give adherence to a system which is liable to produce all the evils which have been described in the course of our Debate.
Now the Government piles Pelion upon Ossa, in this matter. Not only this, but this Measure gives a compulsory quota system as well as a compulsory price fixing arrangement. So far as I can understand these matters, most people who are producers would be perfectly content to have production regulated to the amount the market can take and then to leave the prices to take care of themselves, but the Government proceed to paint the lily and add jam to the butter that it puts upon the bread. They say not only shall the amount of production be limited by the producers accordingly as they choose, which necessarily means that they would take a census as to what the demand was; not only so, but they lay down that the producers shall fix a minimum price below which the coal shall not be sold. What does that mean? It means, certainly, that the last defence of the consumer is taken away, because, while, even under the Government's quota system, it is probable that the producers would always have an extra margin of production available—that they would not cut their margin of production to a very fine point—and that would tend to keep the price at a fair level, now, if there is any margin of production which is there and available, no consumer is going to get it at less than the fixed price which the producers themselves decide. I ask myself, when I read these provisions, where are all the Free Traders in the Government? I perfectly understand that there is a very large number of people on the opposite side of the House who have long ceased to be Free Traders, but what about the Members of the Government who have to deal with this matter?
The basic principle of Free Trade theory is that there shall always be a free market, in order that the consumer
may get his goods at the cheapest price at which they can be made available. That is the basic principle of Free Trade; that is the principle which we have heard so often enunciated by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. The principle of this Bill is that the producers shall be allowed to fix the price for the goods which they produce, at a figure which will give them a fair profit. That is allowed for in all the safeguards which the Bill provides—that they shall [...] allowed to fix the price at such a figure as will give them a fair profit, and that statutory sanction shall be given to this price, so that nobody shall be allowed to sell at any price below it.
That is a complete travesty of the whole theory of Free Trade; it is the most ruthless example of Protection that we have ever seen. No tariff, no Protectionist Bill in the world, has ever done anything like this. What would not all the other trades in the country give to have this form of Protection? An import duty is a modest, a steady, even an old-maidish thing compared with what the Government propose in this scheme. I would like to know how the Chancellor of the Exchequer is going to defend this kind of thing, and whether he supported it in the Cabinet? I suppose he must have supported it; at any rate, he acquiesced in it, and, so far as we are concerned, I think we shall refuse any longer to listen to those rather intolerant speeches that he has made about the weakness of intellect of those who could not see that Free Trade and free competition in goods was an absolute necessity for our industry. Perhaps, when he lectures the other nations of the world for being almost guilty of immorality in having divagated from the path of Free Trade economic theory, he will recollect what his own actions have committed him to in this particular case. It would seem that, however rigid his principles are, and however dogmatically he addresses us, he takes an entirely different tone when he addresses 42 representatives of the mining industry who are determined to get their Bill through Parliament.
I can understand the Government, under that form of coercion, giving away all their principles, but what about the Liberal party? My right hon. Friend came down to the House on the famous occasion when he made his Second Read-
ing speech, which, by the way, was hailed by half the Press of this country as representing the real anti-Socialist feeling, as a proper representation such as ought to have been given by the whole Opposition, as an example of what the Conservatives ought to have done in their attitude towards this Bill. What did he say then in order to get all this praise? He said, "This is a Bill for raising the price of coal," and he gave us a picture of the hearth that was going to be dimmed in its glow because—[Interruption]. Oh, yes. My right hon. Friend forgets. He must not allow his modesty to overcome his remembrance.

Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: It was not quite as crude as that.

Sir R. HORNE: I am only, of course, repeating what my right hon. Friend said as nearly as I can, and such a repetition must always be, I admit, a very poor effort compared with his own original one. Not only so, but the right hon. Gentleman went on to say that it would be a sorry day for those who had to face their constituents on this matter. I wonder what he thinks about that now. There is something to be said, also, as to the way in which he has retreated from the position that he then took up. It was described by the "Daily News," the leading journal which supports my right hon. Friend, as "obscure manoeuvres." I remember quite recently an article by my right hon. Friend in one of the magazines, which talked about the decay of the House of Commons. I cannot, myself, imagine any course of conduct which could more rapidly bring about disrespect for the House of Commons than a cynical retreat from national interests, from high principles which were most loudly voiced from those benches. The excuse which was given in regard to the Naval Conference was so ridiculous that it makes one begin to wonder. When very astute people come forward with ridiculous excuses, one is rather apt to suspect that there is something behind that cannot be told.
What is it that my right hon. Friend is proceeding upon? Is he in a great hurry to get his Alternative Vote, and has he a promise on that matter? May it not be that the patient oxen of the last Socialist regime have become the impatient asses of this one? And what
about the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Darwen (Sir H. Samuel), in whose hands remains the sacred Ark of the Covenant of Free Trade? He made a most eloquent speech on the Second Reading, and he went further even than my right hon. Friend. He said that this was going to be a tax upon the poorest of the poor. He described how the people's gas all over the country was going to be increased in price, and he went on to ask how my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade was going to answer the questions which would be put to him by other industries. I might venture to ask the right hon. Gentleman himself what sort of answer he is going to give now to the other industries when he goes down to try to explain how he agreed that the producers of coal should fix a price, below which it should not be sold, which would give them a fair profit on their expenditure?
How is he going to answer the Lancashire cotton manufacturer who shows how the costs in Lancashire are even greater than the price at which Japan is selling the same sort of goods in Manchester to-day? And when he meets a steel maker who exhibits costs from his books, what is he going to say to that steel maker when he produces figures showing sales by Belgium at prices £1 or £2 a ton of steel less than what it costs him to make the same article in this country? What explanation is he going to give when that steel maker asks, "Why cannot you give me also the right to fix a price for my goods which will yield me a fair profit on my costs?" What is going to be said, too. to the British farmer in the same circumstances? I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will not try to fob off on the British farmer the explanation that he gave to the House two days ago. He then said that his party would vote against the Government upon things that did not matter, but they must support them on things that mattered. I should have thought that he would have taken exactly the opposite course.
What an ignominious position! What a desertion of all the high principles that he expressed in his speech! What a decline from a highly-respected tradition! One thing that this Bill has done, if it has done no other, is that it has made
it absolutely impossible for anyone who has ever actively supported the Bill, or acquiesced in it, when their acquiescence has made them guilty—for the Liberal party is as guilty of every line of this Bill as the Government—it has made it absolutely impossible for them any longer to be heard when they denounce any form of Protection to any trade in this country. I desire that good should emerge from this Bill, and I believe that, if in some of the particulars to which I have referred it could be modified, even on later consideration by the Government, between now and the time when the Bill finally leaves Parliament, we might produce a Measure which, if it did not do all that it was hoped might be achieved by such a Bill, would at least prevent those injuries and those harms which necessarily flow from its present provisions.

Mr. DAGGAR: Unlike the last speaker, I am not in a position to predict the effect of this Bill. He stated, as has already been stated in this House during the discussions on the Bill, that it would have the effect of increasing the price of coal to consumers in this country, but he was certainly less cautious than the ex-Prime Minister, who did not attempt to indulge in prophecies as to what might be the effect of the Bill when its operation as an Act of Parliament commenced. We have been told on repeated occasions that we shall have to address meetings in our constituencies and defend the Bill when it becomes an Act. I want to assure all hon. Members who are present that we shall have no hesitation, as miners' representatives, in doing so, and I have yet to find any section of the working class who are not prepared to pay a slightly increased price for their coal so as to enable the miner to have a decent wage and reasonable conditions of employment.
The ex-Prime Minister made reference to the possible increase in the price of coal to those undertakings which are responsible for the production of gas in this country, and also for the generation of electricity. We have at our disposal statistics which will enable us to ascertain to what extent the price of coal might be increased, and find that, as regards the statutory gas undertakings in this country which are owned by companies, during a period of 13 years from
1911 to 1928, excluding the years 1914 to 1918, for which no particulars are available, the total receipts were over £536,000,000. The total expenditure during the same period amounted approximately to £465,000,000. During a period of 13 years the profits made by these companies were in excess of £70,000,000. If regard is had to the local authorities which are also responsible for the production of gas, we find that for precisely the same period their total receipts were in excess of £275,000,000. The total expenditure was approximately £233,000,000 and the excess of receipts over expenditure was £42,359,000. After paying interest on loans, the amount of loans also repaid and the amount placed to Sinking Fund, the profit was slightly in excess of £9,000,000.
These are not insignificant undertakings when regard is had to the fact that they consume each year approximately 17,000,000 tons of coal. For more correct comparative purposes, let us take the period when the slump in the mining industry commenced, the period of eight years from 1921 to 1928, in order to determine whether these industries are not in a position to pay a slightly increased price for their coal. During that period, the companies received over £374,000,000 and their expenditure was £326,000,000, an excess of £48,000,000. In the case of local authorities over the same period the receipts amounted to £192,000,000 and the expenditure was slightly in excess of £163,000,000, an excess of £30,000,000. After the local authorities paid interest on loans, amount of loans repaid, and the amount placed to the Sinking Fund, there remained a surplus of £5,804,000.
I want to deal for a moment with the authorised electricity undertakings. I take the position of the local authorities. During the same period, their surplus was £93,000,000, out of which they paid in interest on loans secured an amount of £32,000,000, to the Sinking Fund £36,000,000 and for other purposes £25,000,000. The companies that own these undertakings also during the same period had a surplus of £59,000,000. The interest paid lay the companies engaged in the production of electricity during the same period took a sum of £11,000,000, depreciation and other purposes absorbed £25,000,000 and the dividends declared were in excess of £23,000,000. The gross surplus increased
from £4,000,000 in 1921 to £10,000,000 in 1928 and, if we ignore the surpluses of the local authorities, the companies producing gas and electricity made profits equal to £71,000,000.
The point I want to stress is that the increase in profits can only be explained by the fact that these undertakings in 1921 paid 35s. a ton for their coal, whereas in 1928 the mining industry supplied them with coal at a miserable 15s. 7d. per ton, a difference of over 19s. 3d. If there were no other facts than those, we are entitled to claim that, even if the price of coal increases to the owners of these industries, we have a good case in defending the operations of the Bill when it becomes an Act. Contrasting it with the position of the mining industry, we find that the loss to that industry in 1927 was over £5,000,000 and in 1928 it had increased to £9,000,000, a loss on the working of the industry in two years of £15,166,000 and, if regard is had to one producing district, South Wales, since 1926 there is a total deficiency of over £14,000,000. Furthermore those profits were made by these undertakings during the time when the miners' wages were reduced from £264,000,000 in 1920 to £117,000,000 in 1928, a reduction of over £146,000,000. In South Wales the total wages paid in 1920 were slightly in excess of £65,000,000, whereas in 1929 they were £20,000,000.
The evidence of coalowners seemed to be of considerable importance during the discussions on the Bill, and I am personally interested in a statement recently made by a Member of the Opposition that they now realise that this country did an injustice to the miners when they agreed that Germany should pay for the war in the form of coal. I am in good company in the observations I have put before the House, for I find that one of the leading coalowners, Mr. A. W. Archer, in a recent speech made this statement:
According to the Board of Trade figures relating to all authorised gas undertakings in Great Britain for the year 1928, the profit on revenue account for the year of the companies' undertaking exceeded £3,000,000, and in the year 1928–1929 the profit on revenue account of local authorities' undertakings was just under £5,000,000. The coal industry by contrast incurred an immense loss in 1928 of more than £9,700,000.
I, in common with many other Members, have been surprised at the attitude of the Liberal party with regard to the question of compulsory amalgamation. We were told during the election that the scheme they had prepared was to be found in "Goal and Power." We have also been informed that when the Liberal party is in difficulties they always set Members of their own party to write books. I studied "Coal and Power" during the General Election and I failed to find any provision for the compulsory amalgamation of the producing units in the mining industry, and I am very pleased to know that for once they have changed their policy and are now prepared to support a Bill which provides for compulsory amalgamation.
We have always been assured that hon. Members opposite who oppose the Government are sincere in their opposition. I should be the last person in the House to question the sincerity of those who oppose the Government, but there are thousands of persons outside who realise that the word "sincerity" is fast becoming as loosely used as the word "charity." I am a new Member of the House, but I have been informed that that is a quality that may be ascribed to His Satanic Majesty, the Devil, but none of us, because of that, would attach any importance to either his solution of the mining problem or to the assurance that he might give us that he is sincere. I am very much dissatisfied with the Bill, but on entirely different grounds from those of its opponents. I regret the fact that no provision is made for an immediate reduction of the eight hours to seven. While on innumerable occasions we have been criticised because of our lack of experience, those of us who have worked in the mines for 25 years suggest that experience in the mines would be of considerable advantage to our opponents. Many Members opposite are as physically fit to do eight hours in the pit as thousands of men who are now compelled to do it. After eight hours a day for 12 months, some hon. Members opposite would adopt an entirely different attitude to any legislation that might be introduced.
I am pleased that provision is made for the establishment of a National Wages
Board. I regret that the levy is not to be made compulsory, but is left to the voluntary co-operation of the owners. I accept the charge made against the Government that this is a step towards nationalisation. I am prepared to admit that, being convinced that there is no permanent solution of the mining problem unless by complete unification of producing units under a system of public ownership.

Sir LAMING WORTHINGTONEVANS: It is not denied that this Bill has been introduced to fulfil in part the pledges given by the Labour party at the last election. The half-hour reduction is expected to cost not less than £9,000,000, possibly a good deal more, but the owners are to be allowed to increase prices in order that they may recoup themselves the extra, cost. When the Government took office the industry had been passing through a bad time, but, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Hillhead (Sir R. Horne) said, things were improving and by their own efforts they had got to the stage already of convalescence. Now by this Bill the Government will create a state of paralysing uncertainty. They profess to be Free Traders, and yet they are interfering by means of the Bill with free production, sale and export in the most drastic manner. The Protectionists are often charged with increasing prices. It is often said that to place a duty on imports will necessarily increase prices. Protectionists are not prepared to admit that. They claim that by enabling home production to expand, and by reason of internal competition, prices need not rise, but very likely will even fall. This Bill limits production, and, instead of reducing costs, adds largely to the costs of production and even more to the price at which coal has to be sold.
To enable the owners to obtain the higher prices, the Government have been obliged to set up an elaborate and costly machinery of a central council and district boards composed and representative only of the owners. They have been obliged to give these committees of owners unheard of powers to decide how much coal is to be mined, and, indeed, what each pit is to produce. How any Free Trader, or anybody who believes in the elementary principles of Free Trade, can bring himself to support a Bill of this
sort passes my power of comprehension. It is still by the law of the land illegal to make arrangements in restraint of trade, but this Bill not only legalises in the coal trade agreements which would otherwise be illegal, but it compels the dissentient coalowner to fall in with a limitation of output and to be bound by the decision of a committee of rival owners as to the price below which he may not sell his coal. It even enables the committee of owners to impose penalties upon the owner who contravenes their decrees. We admire, and I even fear that we are sometimes taken in by, the apparently guileless and innocent optimism of the President of the Board of Trade, but not even he, much as the House admires him, could persuade the House to pass a Measure without some show of protecting the public against exploitation by the owners to whom he has given such great powers.
One of the four points which the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George) insisted upon as the price of his support, or, at least, for not opposing the Third Reading of this Bill, was that the consumer should get an adequate protection, and he professed to say that he found in the Bill the adequate protection that he was seeking. I wish he had been little less sketchy at that moment. I wish he had told us in what Clause of the Bill he found any protection for the public. What is the fact? The public are usually protected by competition in trade and competitive prices, but the Bill destroys competition. It fixes the prices, and the only protection that the consumer, whether he be a domestic consumer or an industrial consumer, has under this Bill is a committee of investigation of five persons, one a mineowner, one a mine worker, two consumers, and a chairman.

Mr. MARDY JONES: Is that fair?

Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: Is that fair? Why, it is useless. My complaint is that it is useless, and I will show the hon. Gentleman why it is useless. Take the consumer who, we will say, in the month of December complains of the price which he is being charged for coal. He can go before this committee, and they can investigate and report, and then the Board of Trade hold inquiries, and, finally, if the Board of Trade think fit, they may alter the scheme, and they may
alter the minimum price for the future. How long does the hon. Gentleman think that these inquiries will take? First one committee with a report, then the Board of Trade—will you get an answer under a month?—then another committee set up by the Board of Trade, then a report, and then consideration, and perhaps an alteration months afterwards.

Mr. JONES: Not with the present President of the Board of Trade.

Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: The hon. Member must not put too much on the back of one man.

Sir HERBERT SAMUEL: The right hon. Gentleman has forgotten the change which has been made in the Bill on the Committee stage.

Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: If the right hon. Gentleman will point to anything which I have forgotten, I will gladly give way to him.

Sir H. SAMUEL: If a complaint is made to the committee of investigation, and the committee request the mineowners to make an alteration, and the mine-owners refuse, they do not have to refer the matter to the President of the Board of Trade, but they can go at once to the independent arbitrator, and, if he awards that the price has to be reduced, the mine-owners shall comply.

Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: Does the right hon. Gentleman or any hon. Member think that by arbitration intervening in this process it is going to speed up the process? That is only adding another month to the delay. My impression is that it will be at least two months under the sketch I was giving, but an extra month will be added if arbitration is to be given. As far as I know, there is no power to order the repayment of over-charges. There is no power to give a remedy for past oppression, although there may be some protection for the future. I do not find in the Bill, even as amended, that the consumer can himself call for an arbitration. If you bad wanted to give a real protection, you would have given, not the committee of investigation, but the consumer, the right to claim an arbitration. It may be very important. He may be a consumer of a very large amount of coal.

Sir H. SAMUEL: Or he may not.

Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: Take the case of the man who is. Let us assume for a moment that it is a public utility company. It may make all the difference to a large number of people who get their gas or light from that utility company whether the price goes up or does not go up. It is very important that the matter should be settled at once, and not months after wards. Yet it would have been quite possible if hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway had co-operated with us to have secured the right of arbitration for the consumer. He has not that right because sufficient pressure was not brought to bear to overrule the pressure which had been brought to bear on the Government by the coalowners.
The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs was also, I suppose, satisfied with the protection which was given to the dissentient owner. What is the protection which is given to him? Let us take the case of an owner who disputes his quota, or the price fixed below which he may not sell his coal, or the penalties which have been imposed upon him by a committee of rival coal-owners. What is the protection given to him? I cannot find that that is made clear at all. He may appeal to an investigation committee, and apparently he may claim arbitration. At any rate, the President of the Board of Trade, in the course of debate, told me that he could claim arbitration. I accept that. Here he is being deprived of part of the protection which the Arbitration Act would have given to him. The Arbitration Act provides that a case can be stated on a point of law, and, if necessary, the higher courts of the land may be called upon to give a final decision. But in the Bill, as brought in, the Arbitration Act was cut out altogether, and the Law Courts will not be allowed to give a decision even on legal matters. I pressed that in Committee the Arbitration Act should apply and on Report the Government have reinstated the Arbitration Act but they have said that nobody but a judge of the first instance shall give a final decision and the owners shall not be allowed to appeal. I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs is satisfied with that as a sufficient protection to the dissentient owner.
The President of the Board of Trade has sought, in the course of these Debates, to justify overriding the dissentient owner and the adoption of quotas and price fixing on the ground that similar schemes have been brought into operation by the owners themselves. There is all the difference between a compulsory and a voluntary scheme. A voluntary scheme is an agreement of all those who join in it, and any special conditions affecting any individual groups can be taken into account. These who join want it to succeed, and they therefore prepare to meet objections, but in a compulsory scheme set up under this Bill a large dissentient minority will be forced into it. They will try to find ways out. Unlike the voluntary scheme, it does not follow that they really want it to succeed. Certainly, the industrial consumer, who is to be deprived of his rights to use his own colliery which his own enterprise has attached to his business, is not likely to want this scheme to continue. This Bill does not, in fact, give any real protection, and, if it did, it would he unworkable because completely arbitrary powers are necessary if a scheme so contrary to all the conceptions of the rights of individuals has to be forced into operation.
7.0. p.m.
I want to say a few words about compulsory amalgamations. The Liberal party has been uneasy about Part I. They have insisted that Part II should be added to the Bill. We have had an example this evening of the right hon. Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George) trying to show us how all his points have been met, and how he could with an easy conscience either support or, at any rate, not oppose the further stages of the Bill. He did not say to-day that it was because of the Naval Conference, and he did not tell us the other good considerations that have apparently induced him to change his mind. The Bill, therefore, provides that, if the minority cannot be coerced under Part I, they may be deprived of their businesses by amalgamations with other companies under Part II.
That is no exaggeration of the fate of an unfortunate dissentient coalowner. Let us trace this position for a few moments. Let me assume that an owner's pits are vested in a limited company, of which he owns the ordinary shares, and that the
company is well equipped and up to date and has plenty of working capital. If the company has appealed to arbitration about quota or price, months will elapse before the final decisions are obtained. Meanwhile, the re-organisation committee set up under Part II may get busy. Its duty is to promote amalgamations of coal mines in a district where it appears to be in the national interest. If there is dissent in a district, if some of the owners of some of the mines have been appealing or are appealing and holding up the position in that district, it may appear to these commissioners that it is in the national interest to bring about a compulsory amalgamation.
What powers are given to this wonderful commission? They have a power to prepare a scheme of amalgamation, and then, even though every owner of every mine included in the scheme objects, they can still go forward with the scheme and machinery for compulsion can be put into operation. The commission can hold inquiries, send for the owners, examine them on oath, look into their papers and their books, employ technical experts, lawyers, accountants and engineers, and then, after all that, they can call upon the owners to formulate a scheme for amalgamation, and, if they do not do so, the commission can themselves formulate a scheme and bring it before the Railway and Canal Commission. If the Railway and Canal Commission agree, then the owner whose fate I have been tracing can have the shares he had got in his own property, well equipped, with working capital, taken away from him compulsorily, and the only return he will get by way of compensation is shares in the amalgamated concern which may have a value totally different from those taken from him.
The right hon. Member for Carnarvon Boroughs challenged my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition. He said, "You are complaining now of compulsory amalgamations, but it was you yourselves who in 1926 brought in an Act to enable that to be done." There is an immense difference between this Bill and the Act of 1926. In 1926, you had to have some one owner who was willing to father the scheme. He had to bring about the scheme and there might be dissentients in it, but he had to take the responsibility of drawing up that scheme and bringing it before the
Railway and Canal Commission. He was the promoter, he had to see about the management and to see to the working capital, and, in order that there might be any success at all, he had to take the responsibility upon himself. Under this Bill, there need be no one except this Commission. How are they going to provide for the working capital or the management? There is no provision in the Bill. All these vitally important matters are left entirely in the air. Suppose that a company now owning a mine wants further capital. This is one of the difficulties which the mining industry is under at the moment. How is it going to get the further capital? Who is going to give it? It may be that an individual mine is worth working and could by itself obtain its capital, but no one would finance that mine when they know that the next day, as soon as the working capital is provided, they may be amalgamated into another group, and, instead of getting the mine they were prepared to back, get a smaller share in the group. This Bill will destroy the credit and destroy the power to get credit to finance the industry's requirements.
I propose to summarise the objections I have to this Bill. I object to the compulsory quota; a voluntary quota is a totally different thing. If a compulsory quota is necessary, it should be fixed in relation to the economic and efficient working of the mine. I object to price fixing. I say that, if a minimum price is to be arbitrarily fixed by the owners themselves, then better protection ought to be given to the consumers especially against discrimination. I object to levies to give our foreign competitors cheaper bunkering coal than we ourselves enjoy. It will intensify competition and increase unemployment. I object, and I cannot believe that the House realises what they are doing when they allow a committee of owners to sit in judgment and to exact penalties, being themselves interested parties. It seems to me to be contrary to all sense of British justice. I object to Part II. It creates a deplorable precedent; it is not right that a man's legitimate business should be taken from him and vested in another without his consent and without adequate compensation in cash and not in shares unless he accepts them. If this Bill is put in operation, I believe
it will cause unemployment by raising prices, not in the coal trade only but also in every industry depending upon its power to compete in the world markets. For a century cheap coal has been the foundation of the nation's prosperity, and we are now to have dear coal, coal deliberately made dear by Act of Parliament. It is an act of madness for which sooner or later both the Government and the Liberal party will be held responsible.

The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. William Graham): Very often in these long Debates I have risen to reply with anxiety, but I do not mind confessing to the House to-night that I rise to give this quite brief reply in conclusion with undisguised joy. Before I say a single word about the merits of this case, I should like to acknowledge with gratitude the kind personal references of the leader of the Opposition, of the Leader of the Liberal party and innumerable private Members in all parts of the House during these prolonged Debates. It is only fair that I should also acknowledge the unfailing assistance which the Government have received, and which I have received in particular as responsible for this Bill, from the Mining Association and the Miners' Federation of Great Britain, and, if I might add this tribute, from hon. Friends and colleagues on this side of the House, and more particularly from those who represent the mining Divisions. For all that, I am profoundly grateful in what has been admittedly a controversial Bill. I propose to try to reply quite briefly on one or two broad considerations arising from this Measure which appear to me particularly appropriate in the Third Reading Debate.
Hon. Members have suggested that this Measure was forced upon the Government by the pledge which we gave to reduce the working hours of the miners. I have never disguised that, within certain limits, that is perfectly true. Following the crisis of 1926, there was an extension of these working hours to eight per day, but, as my hon. Friend the Member for Clayton (Mr. Sutton) has pointed out, supplemented by my hon. Friend the Member for Abertillery (Mr. Daggar), that in practice means, not the eight hours that is permissive, but much longer periods, because it is plus one winding time, averaging half-an-hour over
the whole country and in certain parts of the coalfields an hour. This working day, having regard to the circumstances of this industry and the constant danger under which these men conduct their occupation, nobody in his heart will really defend.
It is remarkable that during these Debates the attack has not been so much on the reduction of the working time, but has tended to concentrate all its efforts in order to spread the reduction over or to find some other solution rather than to make a frontal oppositions these proposals. The House has been reminded that next year, at the end of June, the Act of 1926 expires. If I had time tonight, it would be quite easy to prove that there are many advantages in the interests of the industry and other industries in taking off this half-an-hour now, as the Miners' Federation themselves recognise, and another half-an-hour's reduction after these marketing schemes have been working a certain time, when that Act expires, in the middle of next year, by which date we all trust this industry will be restored to a position of health and strength. It is also suggested that there will be a considerable increase of working costs due to this reduction of working time. Some hon. Members put it as high as 1s. 6d. a ton in one of the leading export districts of the country, a figure which has been widely quoted but is subject to qualification. On the average it is said to work out at nine-pence, which I have not completely accepted.
Against these considerations, there are provisions which it is perfectly reasonable to take into account when we embark upon any reduction of working time. It is fortunate that the coal industry is improving and has been improving for some time. Last year, as the right hon. Member for Hillhead (Sir R. Home) reminded the House, exports were better by 10,000,000 tons. It is true that the inland demand remains, broadly, static, that there is not a great deal of variation in it, but if the heavy industries recover, the home demand will show elasticity and expansion. I have always acknowledged to hon. Members opposite that there is also a contribution of probably 6d. or 7d. per ton attributable to their derating scheme. On principle, we did not oppose
that scheme but we rather opposed the method of its application.
It was always part of our case that many of these local burdens should be transferred to the national exchequer, especially where they fell with great weight upon industries such as the coal industry. From these two heads there will be contributions. In the case of South Wales there will also be a contribution from the Italian State Railways contract, which we obtained, and, finally, there will be a contribution in the operation of the marketing schemes over a period of three or four months in endeavouring to obtain an economic price for the coal which we sell, which will go to help the ascertainments in the different districts, and will be available in certain proportions for the owners on the one side, and for the miners on the other. It is reasonable to take these considerations into account in making this reduction in working time. Therefore, both on economic and on human grounds I suggest that this change is justified, that this is a policy to which the Government are rightly committed, and that we have adopted the best method in our endeavour to carry it out.
Let me turn to what are wider and perhaps deeper considerations in connection with the Bill. There are two broad influences operating in Part I of the Bill, in the regulation of output, in the price fixing, in the co-ordination of the owners in the central scheme and in district organisations on the one side, and in the compulsory amalgamations which are now part of the Bill, on the other side. Hon. Members opposite seem to argue that we have gone too far in introducing any kind of compulsion, either in regulating the marketing or in bringing the undertakings together. I submit, with the friendship and good will which have in reality characterised our Debates, that there is an overwhelming case for a big contribution from these two forces, if we are to have any chance of surviving in the competition of Europe or in any other part of the world in the coal market.
There is nothing new in the marketing proposals. They have been tried with very substantial results in the Five Counties Scheme which, however, has been subject to a great deal of difficulty because of a dissentient minority which has
remained outside, which has made no contribution but which has taken all the advantages of the benefits which the Five Counties Scheme has secured. The principle was tried in South Wales for the purpose of safeguarding the economic situation, and it was tried in Scotland under a temporary scheme which had a great deal to recommend it, because part of the levy raised in the Scottish proposal was to be used for the extinction of those uneconomic units which were a menace to the industry.
What is the characteristic note in the experience of the marketing schemes so far as they have been voluntarily adopted in this country? First of all, it has been made clear that a minority, and sometimes a small minority, in any district, can undermine the scheme, and can hinder the progress which has been made. In the next place, the experience of the industry proves that it requires only some accidental, fortuitous circumstance to occur to destroy the scheme altogether. The cold spell in the earlier part of last year accounted to a material extent for the disappearance of the Scottish scheme. It is an odd fact in coal production in this country that when any artificial aid is given, for example, the large subsidy in 1925, or where there is an improvement in some form of marketing, or when a spell of cold weather intervenes, immediately the precarious organisation that has been built up disappears, or tends to disappear, and the industry relapses once more into that lamentable state which has done so much to bring poverty and misery upon millions of people in the land. How long is that state of affairs to continue?
Sometimes during the Debates I have been surprised at the attitude of hon. Members on the Conservative Benches, in spite of all that goodwill which I so gladly acknowledge. This sort of thing has been done and is being done by them in other important industries in this country in their individual capacities. It is true that hon. Members opposite argue that that has been done on voluntary lines. I would remind the House that there is very much more compulsion in the industrial practice of this country than in any form of legislative compulsion. There are cases where minorities have been unwilling to come in but where
it has been absolutely impossible for them to remain outside, because of the economic pressure to which they have been subjected. In my economic studies within recent years, I have read bitter complaints of many of these people who by trust organisations have been driven out of business and have had no redress at all. However that may be, the fact remains that this industry, no more than any other great industry, cannot escape the necessity of some form of co-ordination in the production and marketing of its products. From the beginning to the end of these long Debates not a single Member has ever challenged this fact, which is beyond dispute, that considerable quantities of coal have been sold at an uneconomic level, and until order is brought to the industry there is no remedy for that state of things.
When the Bill was introduced, I do not deny that perhaps, in the innocence which has been attributed to me, perhaps wrongly, I relied too much on the tendency of fusion which I thought was inherent in Part I, on the fixing of standard tonnage, on the quota scheme, on the co-ordination of the central body or of district organisations. I have modified that view a little, but it is still true that there will be a great contribution towards the amalgamation of collieries from that side. Observe the conditions in which the industry are now placed. They will have now a central knowledge of the amount of coal which is required, or which can be disposed of. That is not restriction in the sense that hon. Members opposite describe it. Under this Bill there is provision for immediate reaction to any increase in demand, and to any economic level, and there are special steps which can be taken to stimulate in the export trade that elasticity on which the recovery of the coal industry so largely depends. There will be knowledge of national demand, district allocations and so on. Surely it is economic common sense, outside our party politics altogether, that the tendency of such a combination of forces must be all to the good from the industrial and national point of view. Is it not desirable that we should get together and fuse these undertakings, or to have them fused, which are no longer in effective competition in many cases,
but are engaged in the indiscriminate scramble which continues in this industry at the present time?
I am betraying no secret when I tell the House that since these proposals were made, and within very recent times, far-reaching proposals for the amalgamation of collieries have been put forward, and every effort will be made to try to bring in the minorities in those districts into what will be powerful units in the home market on the one side, and the export market on the other. In addition to that, there is the contribution of the compulsory amalgamations. My right hon. Friend opposite made reference to that point. The Act of 1926 was from some points of view a very remarkable departure by Conservatives who are wedded to a competitive system on the individualistic basis. They had been wedded at the same time to a good deal of interference in other spheres prior to that. I have been long enough in this House to remember the Railway Act of 1921 and the Electricity Act of 1926, to which reference has been made to-night, which followed a most damaging report by three leading industrialists in this country, stating that the voluntary principle had broken down, and that a very comprehensive and inclusive scheme was required. It is true that there were public utility concerns, but I beg the House to remember that the great coal industry and other industries are passing into that category of fixed and comparatively inelastic demand. Even if that were not true of Great Britain it is true of the Continent of Europe and I would ask hon. Members, in fairness, how we are to escape a tendency of that kind and how we are to survive if we do not adjust supply to that demand. The Act of 1926 was voluntary on the amalgamation side, but it introduced a compulsory element. The moment one owner took the initiative, compulsory machinery of a far-reaching character came into play.
What more does this Bill provide? We have had two or three years' experience under that Act. Under the 1926 Act no one has suggested that there has been other than an infinitesimal amount of amalgamation. There has been nothing like the amount of amalgamation that this industry requires, with some 1,400 undertakings and 2,000 pits, as against
the concentration in the Ruhr and the Westphalian area and in other great centres of European coal production. We have had two or three years of perfectly fair trial of what I would call the voluntary principle. Now we come to the principles of the present Bill. What does the Bill do? In a single sentence, it does no more than this, in my judgment, and it is decisive: it guarantees the initiative for amalgamation. It says that if amalgamation is not promoted by the owners in the districts then the amalgamation commissioners may go down and consider all the circumstances and frame a scheme. All the rights of the parties are protected, because they can go to the Railway and Canal Commission, who are charged with the duty of deciding whether the scheme is in the public interest and whether it is fair and equitable to the parties concerned. That is the change that is made in this legislation, and it is a change which I believe can be abundantly justified on the facts of the situation and certainly on the needs of British coal production.
I want to say a word or two on the importance of this contribution vis-à-vis the home market and the Continent of Europe. It is quite true that this Bill does not touch in its marketing proposals or in its investigating committees those stages between the pithead production of coal and the retail sale to the consumer. That is perfectly true; and it would require separate and perhaps comprehensive legislation. Take the figures of 1928. During that year the average pithead price of coal in this country was 12s. 10d. per ton, which was a 27 per cent. increase over the pre-War 1913 pithead price. What was the percentage increase to the consumers? Over the great bulk of the fuel, it was approaching 100 per cent. In other words, there is the remarkable difference between a 27 per cent. increase on the pithead average price and 100 per cent. increase on the average to the consuming classes. I am not disputing that there are intervening factors, such as freights and railway charges, but they do not account for anything like the difference. I have always admitted that this is one of the problems which all parties will have to face—that is, the difference between the pithead price, or the original price, and the final price, the retail
price, which is in force at the present time. That is a situation which will have to be faced.
Part I of the present Bill at any rate does this—even now steps are being taken to this end—it is going to bring owners together in those various districts. They are negotiating with the wholesale traders, and they are trying to ascertain whether by vertical organisations, a point which was strongly pressed by two hon. Members on these benches in the case of the cotton industry, they can bridge this gulf between the pithead price and the retail price, which is as great a danger and injustice to them as it is to any class of the community. In regard to the Continent of Europe, let me say that an organisation of this sort in Great Britain will give us greater bargaining power on which we can approach some kind of a European agreement, and it will also give us greater bargaining power in those markets in which we have been displaced in Europe because of the remarkable circumstances following the European War; and that great accession of strength to certain departments of coal production which were undoubtedly gained by Poland within recent years. Authorities on the Continent in their negotiations indicate that not until British coal production is organised substantially on these lines will it count for anything at all in the European coal controversy, either for a better price in marketing, or for a better allocation of the European markets should that come.
I want to say one final word on what seems to be the one consideration of this Bill, and I do it quite irrespective of party prejudice. When I started I hoped that there would be a desire on all sides to face this problem as one of the problems of the reorganisation of British industries to meet post-War needs and to strengthen us vis-à-vis European competition. Let the House remember the burdens under which we labour. I have quoted this striking fact before that during the six years of our peak War expenditure, between 1914 and 1920, the expenditure which we poured out amounted in the whole to as much as two and a quarter centuries of our preceding experience and we now have 50 years' burden on industry on the backs of our people. On the Continent they have got rid of a great deal of their internal debt by in-
flation. We have had innumerable forms of mortgage and debt which British industry is carrying, and short of this organisation in a great basic trade we have no hope of real and effective competition. I am not a pessimist so far as coal is concerned. The Balfour Committee was perfectly correct, if I may humbly say so, in saying that in spite of all these burdens which have fallen on British industries there is still a great inherent and basic strength, but it still requires order and discipline in place of scramble and indiscipline.
And finally I beg the House to remember that underlying the cold technical clauses of this Bill there is a great human proposition. These men are carrying on their work in circumstances of the gravest danger and they are entitled to have their production sold at an economic

Division No. 250.]
AYES.
[7.38 p.m.


Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)
Cocks, Frederick Seymour
Hirst, W. (Bradford. South)


Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)
Compton, Joseph
Hoffman, P. C.


Addison, Rt. Hon. Dr. Christopher
Cove, William G.
Hollins, A.


Aitchison. Rt. Hon. Craig[...]e M.
Daggar, George
Hopkin, Daniel


Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V. (Hillsbro')
Dallas, George
Horrabin, J. F.


Alpass, J. H.
Dalton, Hugh
Hudson, James H. (Huddersfield)


Ammon, Charles George
Day, Harry
Isaacs, George


Angell, Norman
Denman, Hon. R. D.
Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)


Arnott, John
Devlin, Joseph
John, William (Rhondda, West)


Attlee, Clement Richard
Dickson, T.
Johnston, Thomas


Ayles, Walter
Dukes, C.
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)


Baker, John (Wolverhampton, Bilston)
Duncan, Charles
Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)


Baldwin, Oliver (Dudley)
Ede, James Chuter
Jowett, Rt. Hon. F. W.


Barnes, Alfred John
Edge, Sir William
Jowitt, Rt. Hon. Sir W. A.


Barr, James
Edmunds, J. E.
Kelly, W. T.


Batey, Joseph
Edwards, E. (Morpeth)
Kennedy, Thomas


Beckett, John (Camberwell, Peckham)
Egan, W. H.
Kenworthy, Lt.-Com. Hon. Joseph M.


Bellamy, Albert
Forgan, Dr. Robert
Kinley, J.


Bean, Rt. Hon. Wedgwood
Freeman, Peter
Kirkwood, D.


Bennett, Capt. E. N. (Cardiff,Central)
Gardner, B. W. (West Ham, Upton)
Knight, Holford


Bennett, William (Battersea, South)
Gardner, J. P. (Hammersmith, N.)
Lang, Gordon


Benson, G.
Gibbins, Joseph
Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George


Bentham, Dr. Ethel
Gibson, H. M. (Lancs. Mossley)
Lathan, G.


Bevan. Aneurin (Ebbw Vale)
Gill, T. H.
Law, Albert (Bolton)


Bondfield, Rt. Hon. Margaret
Gillett, George M.
Law, A. (Rosendale)


Bowen, J. W.
Gossling, A. G.
Lawrie, Hugh Hartley (Stalybridge)


Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.
Gould, F.
Lawson, John James


Broad, Francis Alfred
Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)
Lawther, W. (Barnard Castle)


Brockway, A. Fenner
Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm. (Ed[...]n., Cent.)
Leach, W.


Bromfield, William
Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A. (Colne)
Lee, Frank (Derby, N.E.)


Bromley, J.
Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)
Lee, Jennie (Lanark, Northern)


Brooke, W.
Griffiths. T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)
Lees, J.


Brothers, M.
Groves, Thomas E.
Lewis, T. (Southampton)


Brown, C. W. E. (Notts. Mansfield)
Grundy, Thomas W.
Lindley, Fred W.


Brown, Rt. Hon. J. (South Ayrshire)
Hall, F. (York, W.R., Normanton)
Lloyd, C. Ellis


Brown, W. J. (Wolverhampton, West)
Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Logan, David Gilbert


Buchanan, G.
Hall. Capt. W. P. (Portsmouth, C.)
Longbottom, A. W.


Burgess, F. G.
Hamilton, Mary Agnes (Blackburn)
Longden, F.


Buxton, C. R. (Yorks. W. R. E[...]and)
Hard[...]e, George D.
Lovat-Fraser. J. A.


Buxton, Rt. Hon. Noel (Norfolk, N.)
Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon
Lowth, Thomas


Caine, Derwent Hall.
Hastings, Dr. Somerville
Lunn, William


Cameron, A. G.
Haycock, A. W.
Macdonald, Gordon (Ince)


Cape, Thomas
Hayday, Arthur
MacDonald, Rt. hon. J. R. (Seaham)


Carter, W. (St. Pancras, S. W.)
Hayes, John Henry
Mac Donald, Malcolm (Bassetlaw)


Charleton, H. C.
Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Burnley)
McElwee. A.


Chater, Daniel
Henderson, Arthur, Junr. (Cardiff, S.)
McEntee. V. L.


Church, Major A. G.
Henderson, Thomas (Glasgow)
Mackinder, W.


Clarke, J. S.
Henderson, W. W. (Middx., Enfield)
McKinlay, A.


Cluse, W. S.
Herriotts, J.
MacLaren, Andrew


Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.
Hirst, G. H. (York W. R. Wentworth)
Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)

level. From the beginning to the end of these Debates I have felt that we as a Government would be justified, and every effort on my part would be abundantly made good, if this Bill in its operation brought the two sides of the industry together and enabled them to reorganise in the production and later on the distribution of their coal, and if, above all, it brought a message of hope and encouragement to the 900,000 men in our coalfields, their womenfolk who under literally terrible conditions have not lost hope, and to the little children of the succeeding generation mho will look to this trade for their succour and support.

Question put, "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question."

The House divided: Ayes, 277; Noes, 234.

MacNeill-Weir, L.
Richards, R.
Sutton, J. E.


McShane, John James
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)
Taylor, R. A. (Lincoln)


Mansfield, W.
Riley, Ben (Dewsbury)
Taylor, W. B. (Norfolk, S.W.)


March, S.
Riley, F. F. (Stockton-on-Tees)
Thomas, Rt. Hon. J. H. (Derby)


Marcus, M.
Ritson, J.
Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)


Markham, S. F.
Roberts, Rt. Hon. F. O. (W. Bromwich)
Thurtle, Ernest


Marley, J.
Romeril, H. G.
Tinker, John Joseph


Marshall, Fred
Rosbotham, D. S. T.
Toole, Joseph


Mathers, George
Rawson, Guy
Tout, W. J.


Matters, L. W.
Salter, Dr. Alfred
Townend, A. E.


Melville, Sir James
Samuel, H. W. (Swansea, West)
Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles


Messer, Fred
Sanders, W. S.
Turner, B.


Middleton, G.
Sandham, E.
Vaughan, D. J.


Mills, J. E.
Sawyer, G. F.
Viant, S. P.


Milner, Major J.
Scrymgeour, E.
Walkden, A. G.


Montague, Frederick
Scurr, John
Walker, J.


Morgan, Dr. H. B.
Sexton, James
Wallace, H. W.


Morley, Ralph
Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)
Wellhead, Richard C.


Morrison, Herbert (Hackney, South)
Shepherd, Arthur Lewis
Watkins, F. C.


Morrison, Robert C. (Tottenham, N.)
Sherwood, G. H.
Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)


Mort, D. L.
Shield, George William
Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)


Moses, J. J. H.
Shiels, Dr. Drummond
Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. Josiah


Mosley, Lady C. (Stoke-on-Trent)
Shillaker, J. F.
Wellock, Wilfred


Mosley, Sir Oswald (Smethwick)
Shinwell, E.
Welsh, James (Paisley)


Muff. G.
Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)
Welsh, James C. (Coatbridge)


Muggeridge, H. T.
Simmons, C. J.
West, F. R.


Murnin, Hugh
Sinkinson, George
Whiteley, Wilfrid (Birm., Ladywood)


Naylor, T. E.
Smith, Alfred (Sunderland)
Whiteley, William (Blaydon)


Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)
Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)
Wilkinson, Ellen C.


Noel Baker, P. J.
Smith, Frank (Nuneaton)
Williams, David (Swansea, East)


Oldfield, J. R.
Smith, H. B. Lees- (Keighley)
Williams Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)


Oliver, George Harold (Ilkeston)
Smith, Rennie (Penistone)
Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)


Palin, John Henry
Smith, Tom (Pontefract)
Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)


Paling, Wilfrid
Smith, W. R. (Norwich)
Wilson, J. (Oldham)


Palmer, E. T.
Snell, Harry
Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)


Perry, S. F.
Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip
Winterton, G. E.(Leicester,Loughb'gh)


Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.
Snowden, Thomas (Accrington)
Wise, E. F.


Phillips, Dr. Marion
Sorensen, R.
Wright, W. (Rutherglen)


Picton-Turbervill, Edith
Stamford, Thomas W.
Young, R. S. (Islington, North)


Pole, Major D. G.
Stephen, Campbell



Potts, John S.
Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Price, M. P.
Strachey, E. J. St. Loe
Mr. Allen Parkinson and Mr.


Qu[...]bell, D. J. K.
Strauss, G. R.
Charles Edwards.


Raynes, W. R.
Sullivan, J.





NOES.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Burton, Colonel H. W.
Dugdale, Capt. T. L.


Ainsworth, Lieut.-Col. Charles
Butler, R. A.
Eden, Captain Anthony


Albery, Irving James
Butt, Sir Alfred
Edmondson, Major A. J.


Allen, Sir J. Sandeman (Liverp'l.,W.)
Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward
Elliot, Major Walter E.


Allen, Lt.-Col. Sir William (Armagh)
Carver, Major W. H.
Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s.M.)


Allen, W. E. D. (Belfast, W.)
Castle Stewart, Earl of
Everard, W. Lindsay


Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.
Cautley, Sir Henry S.
Falle, Sir Bertram G.


Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W.
Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)
Ferguson, Sir John


Astor, Maj. Hon. John J (Kent.Dover)
Cazalet, Captain Victor A.
Fermoy, Lord


Atholl, Duchess of
Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton
Fielden, E. B.


Atkinson, C.
Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Edgbaston)
Fison, F. G. Clavering


Ba[...]e-Hamilton, Hon. Charles W.
Chapman, Sir S.
Ford, Sir P. J.


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley (Bewdley)
Christie, J. A.
Forestier-Walker, Sir L.


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer
Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.


Balfour, Captain H. H. (I. of Thanet)
Cockerill, Brig.-General Sir George
Galbraith, J. F. W.


Ba[...]n[...]e[...], Lord
Cohen, Major J. Brune[...]
Ganzon[...], Sir John


Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.
Colfax, Major William Philip
Gibson, C. G. (Pudsey amp; Otley)


Beaumont, M. W.
Colman, N. C. D.
Glyn, Major R. G. C.


Bellairs, Commander Carlyon
Colville, Major D. J.
Grace, John


Bennett, Sir Albert (Nottingham, C.)
Courtauld, Major J. S.
Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)


Berry, Sir George
Courthope, Colonel Sir G. L.
Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.


Betterton, Sir Henry B.
Cowan, D. M.
Greaves-Lord, Sir Walter


Bevan, S. J. (Holborn)
Cranbourne, Viscount
Greene, W. P. Crawford


Birchall, Major Sir John Dearman
Crichton-Stuart, Lord C.
Grenfell, Edward C. (City of London)


Bird, Ernest Roy
Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.
Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon, John


Boothby, R. J. G.
Crookshank, Capt. H. C.
Gritten, W. G. Howard


Bourne, Captain Robert Croft
Croom-Johnson, R. P.
Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.


Bowater, Col. Sir T. Vahs[...]ttart
Culverwell, C. T. (Bristol, West)
Gunston, Captain D. W.


Boyce, H. L.
Cunliffe-Lister, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip
Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.


Bracken, B.
Da[...]keith, Earl of
Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)


Braithwaite, Major A. N.
Da[...]rymple-White, Lt.-Col. Sir Godfrey
Hamilton, Sir George(Ilford)


Brass, Captain Sir William
Davidson, Rt. Hon. J. (Hertford)
Hammersley, S. S.


Briscoe, Richard George
Davidson, Major-General Sir J. H.
Hanbury, C.


Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'l'd., Hexham)
Davies, Dr. Vernon
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry


Brown, Brig.-Gen.H.C.(Berks, Newb'y)
Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)
Harbord, A.


Buchan, John
Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.)
Hartington, Marquess of


Buckingham, Sir H.
Dixey, A. C.
Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)


Bullock, Captain
Malcolm Duckworth, G. A. V.
Haslam, Henry C.




Henderson, Capt. R. R.(Oxf'd,Henley)
Moore, Sir Newton J. (Richmond)
Smith, R. W. (Aberd'n amp; Kinc'dine, C.)


Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel
Arthur P. Moore, Lieut.-Colonel T. C. R. (Ayr)
Smith-Carington, Neville W.


Hills, Major Rt. Hon. John Walter
Morden, Col. W. Grant
Smithers, Waldron


Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G.
Morrison, W. S. (Glos., Cirencester)
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)


Hope, Sir Harry (Forfar)
Morrison-Bell, Sir Arthur Clive
Southby, Commander A. R. J.


Horne, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert S.
Muirhead, A. J.
Spender-Clay, Colonel H.


Howard-Bury, Colonel C. K.
Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge)
Stanley, Lord (Fylde)


Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)
Nicholson, O. (Westminster)
Stanley, Maj. Hon. 0. (W'morland)


Hurd, Percy A.
Nicholson, Col. Rt. Hn. W. G. (Ptrsf'ld)
Steel-Maitland, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur


Hurst, Sir Gerald B.
Neild, Rt. Hon. Sir Herbert
Stewart, W. J. (Belfast, South)


Iveagh, Countess of
Oman, Sir Charles William C.
Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)


James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert
O'Neill, Sir H.
Sueter, Rear-Admiral M. F.


Jones, Sir G. W. H. (Stoke New'gton)
Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William
Thomas, Major L. B. (King's Norton)


Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)
Peake, Capt. Osbert
Thomson, Sir F.


Kindersley, Major G. M.
Penny, Sir George
Tinne, J. A.


King, Commodore Rt. Hon. Henry D.
Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)
Titchfield, Major the Marquess of


Lamb, Sir J. Q.
Pilditch, Sir Philip
Todd, Capt. A. J.


Lambert, Rt. Hon. George (S. Molten)
Power, Sir John Cecil
Train, J.


Lane Fox, Col. Rt. Hon. George R.
Pownall, Sir Assheton
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement


Law, Sir Alfred (Derby, High Peak)
Ramsbotham, H.
Turton, Robert Hugh


Leigh, Sir John (Clapham)
Rawson, Sir Cooper
Vaughan-Morgan. Sir Kenyon


Leighton, Major B. E. P.
Reid, David D. (County Down)
Wallace, Capt. D. E. (Hornsey)


Lewis, Oswald (Colchester)
Remer, John R.
Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. Lambert


Little, Dr. E. Graham
Rentoul, Sir Gerva[...]s S.
Wardlaw-Milne, J. S


Llewellin, Major J. J.
Reynolds, Col. Sir James
Warrender, Sir Victor


Locker-Lampson, Rt. Hon. Godfrey
Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch't'sy)
Waterhouse, Captain Charles


Locker-Lampson, Com. O.(Handsw'th)
Roberts, Sir Samuel (Ecclesall)
Wayland, Sir William A.


Long, Major Eric
Rodd, Rt. Hon. Sir James Rennell
Wells, Sydney R.


Lymington, Viscount
Ross, Major Ronald D.
Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay)


McConnell, Sir Joseph
Ruggles-Brise, Lieut.-Colonel E. A.
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George


Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Macquisten, F. A.
Salmon, Major I.
Withers, Sir John James


MacRobert, Rt. Hon. Alexander M.
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)
Wolmer, Rt. Hon Viscount


Maitland, A. (Kent, Faversham)
Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)
Womersley, W. J.


Makins, Brigadier-General E.
Sandeman, Sir N. Stewart Wood,
Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley


Margesson, Captain H. D.
Sassoon, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip A. G. D.
Worthington-Evans. Rt. Hon. Sir L.


Marjoribanks, E. C.
Savery, S. S.
Wright, Brig.-Gen. W. D. (Tavist'k)


Mason, Colonel Glyn K.
Shepperson, Sir Ernest Whittome
Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton


Meller, R. J.
Simms, Major-General J.



Merriman, Sir F. Boyd
Skelton, A. N.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)
Smith, Louis W. (Sheffield, Hallam)
Commander Sir B. Eyres Monsell




and Major Sir George Hennessy.

Bill read the Third time, and passed.

Orders of the Day — ARMY AND AIR FORCE (ANNUAL) BILL.

Considered in Committee.

[Mr. DUNNICO in the Chair.]

Clauses 1 (Short Title), 2 (Army Act and Air Force Act to be in, force for specified times), and 3 (Prices in respect of billeting), ordered to stand part of the Bill.

CLAUSE 4.—(Amendment of Army Act, s. 138.)

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The two Amendments in the name of the hon. and gallant Member for Portsmouth Central (Captain W. G. Hall) and other hon. Members—in page 3, line 33, at the beginning, to insert the words:
The following Amendments shall he made";
and in line 42, at the end, to add a new Sub-section:
(2) The following paragraph shall be added to the proviso:—
'and—
(d) where a soldier has made an allotment from his ordinary pay for the support of any dependant, penal deductions from his ordinary pay shall be made only from the portion of his ordinary pay not so allotted.'"—
are inter-dependent, and I think it will be for the convenience of the Committee if we take the discussion on both Amendments together.

Captain W. G. HALL: I beg to move, in page 3, line 33, at the beginning, to insert the words:
The following Amendments shall be made";
This Amendment and its consequential Sub-section may be described as a hardy annual. It has been up year after year on this Bill, and I believe that in 1925 the hon. and gallant Member for Limehouse (Major Attlee) was sufficiently lucky in that he got the Conservative Secretary of State for War to meet many of the objections which up to then had been raised in regard to this particular matter. At the present moment, I understand that 50 per cent. of the compulsory allotment made by a soldier may remain untouched,
no matter what the amount of debt which he has contracted may be. We desire now to go further. We want the compulsory allotment which has been made to his dependents to be entirely free from any debt which he may have contracted, and from any deductions therefrom which he may have to pay.
I have very great hopes that the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for War will accept this Amendment as it stands, because, looking back over the Debates which have taken place on this issue in previous years, I have discovered that he voted in favour of this Amendment, and not only so, but the Financial Secretary to the War Office also voted in favour of it. Indeed, the Under-Secretary of State for Air, who is also interested in this Bill, moved this Amendment last year when this Bill was under discussion. I think, therefore, we have every reasonable hope that all three of them will shortly get up and announce that they are entirely in favour of this Amendment. All the arguments in favour of the Amendment have been put over and over again, and it is not for me to-night, with so many other Clauses to get through, to detain the Committee too long, but for the sake of those who are new to this House and unfamiliar with the Debates which have taken place on this issue before, may I briefly run through the main points which, it seems to me, make it extremely necessary that this Amendment should he agreed to?
As the Act stands at present, a wrong done by a soldier, for which he has to pay by deductions from his pay, falls very heavily on the innocent. If, as at present, the allotment which that man makes to his family can be stopped, it means that his family is suffering, though entirely innocent of the sin committed. Then we have to remember that money is often stopped in the Army for breaches of discipline and for crimes which in ordinary civil life would not be considered crimes at all. In fact, very often the best soldiers are those with the highest spirits, and they frequently get entries on their crime-sheets for offences which in ordinary life would be passed over without any remark at all. I therefore think that it is at last time that this Amendment should be made.
There is a further point. If, as I suppose is the case, men have stoppages
made from their pay in order to punish them, it seems to me strange that money which already does not come to them, but which has been allocated to their dependants, should be thrown into the pool when any stoppage has to take place. I think it would be far better, and a man would suffer greater punishment, if the stoppages were taken from that part of his pay which still comes to him. For these and other reasons, which other speakers may give, I ask the Secretary of State for War to agree with us in this Amendment, and at last to put this hardy annual into the Bill, in order that a longstanding injustice to the dependants of many soldiers may be done away with for ever.

8.0 p.m.

The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the WAR OFFICE (Mr. Shinwell): My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Central Portsmouth (Captain Hall) has presented the matter very ably, and I am, of course, reluctant to oppose his wishes. I confess I was immensely attracted by this proposition at one time, but I think my hon. and gallant Friend will find that there is an overwhelming case against it. The matter may be divided into two parts. To begin with, we have the soldiers who absent themselves without leave or who desert. In such cases they forfeit all right to pay absolutely, and clearly, where there is no pay there can be no deduction, and equally where there is no pay there can be no allotment. It is clear that when the soldier is not rendering service, he cannot expect to receive remuneration. I understand that my hon. and gallant Friend is not pressing for pay in such cases, and, therefore, the demand for a continuation of the allotment falls. Again, for instance, where a soldier commits a misdemeanour, and in consequence there are deductions made from his ordinary pay, if the debt incurred by the soldier can be cleared in the course of three months, which I am sure my hon. and gallant Friend will agree is a fairly long period, there is no interference of any sort or kind with the allotment. If the debt is of such a character as to preclude the possibility of clearance within that period, the allotment from the ordinary pay to the dependants is reduced by 50 per cent. I think my hon. and gallant Friend will agree that there is no possible ground of injus-
tice in the position as it now stands. But over and above that, we have inquired as to the number of cases where allotments from the ordinary pay have been reduced by 50 per cent. My hon. Friend may be surprised to learn that out of 7,899 cases where allotments are made by personnel of the Royal Artillery only five allotments in the course of the last six months were reduced by 50 per cent. Really, when only five allotments are reduced to that extent it can hardly be claimed that there is any ground for complaints. We also examined the records of three infantry regiments, and, out of 7,797 cases, four allotments were affected. I think, having regard to these facts, that there is very little hardship.
My hon. Friend will agree that if this deterrent were not in operation many soldiers, knowing, as they would be bound to know, that their dependants were in no way affected, might commit offences which would ordinarily result in a reduction of some of their pay. We cannot take that risk. There is the risk of more offences being committed. In the absence of definite cases of hardship, and having regard to the fact that there is a period of three months over which the debt incurred by the soldier can be cleared, and in view of the figures I have just enumerated I ask my hon. Friend to remain content with the position and with the assurance that if we meet with cases of hardship they will receive sympathetic consideration. In view of this statement, I hope that he will withdraw his Amendment.

Mr. MARKHAM: The speech that we have just heard if anything rather favours the Amendment than otherwise. We have just heard the Financial Secretary say that after a most complete investigation into the cases of three infantry regiments and the Royal Field Artillery there were only nine cases affected by the present regulations. Suppose that we assume that the total number for the whole of the Army is about 80, and that would be a gross exaggeration, even then each one of these cases would be a real injustice to the dependants of the man who committed the misdemeanor. It does not matter whether the number affected be small or great, if there be an injustice it should be abolished. For that reason, I hope
the hon. Member will push his Amendment through to a Division. I am sorry to have had to listen to a Labour Member saying that in order to ensure discipline in the Army we must have some means of smashing the British Tommy through his mother or his wife. I served for six years in the Army, and I have had my pay stopped and my parents penalised thereby, and I feel ashamed, as a Member of this party, that I should have heard the Financial Secretary make the statement that he has just made. I hope the matter will be put to a Division and carried.

Question put, "That those words he there inserted."

The Committee proceeded to a Division:—

Mr. WILLIAM WHITELEY and MT. WILFRED PALING were appointed Tellers for the Noes; but there being no Members willing to act as Tellers for the Ayes, the CHAIRMAN declared that the Noes had it.

Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill," put, and agreed to.

CLAUSE 5.—(Abolition of death penalty in certain cases.)

The SECRETARY of STATE for WAR (Mr. T. Shaw): Mr. Dunnico, may I ask for your advice? There are down on the Paper five different Amendments, all dealing with the same subject. Can you agree, with the consent of the Committee, to have the widest possible general Debate on the whole of the Amendments, in order to give every Member of the House an opportunity of stating his views, from whatever side he comes—for this is no party matter—and then take the vote on the Amendments automatically. That, I think, would be for the convenience of the Committee.

Mr. THURTLE: I would submit that there is a definite difference as between the issue of the abolition of the death penalty for cowardice and the abolition of the death penalty for desertion, and I think they should be argued separately. I desire respectfully to reserve my right to argue the question of the abolition of the death sentence for desertion separately.

Mr. GUINNESS: This is largely a domestic question, but, speaking for the Opposition, I would say that we do not
wish to cause an undue prolongation of the discussion, and we are content to discuss the whole matter in a general Debate and then take Divisions on specific Amendments.

Mr. SHAW: My suggestion was for the convenience of the Committee, and was not meant to prevent anyone from expressing his view. I take it that if we had a broad general discussion everything would be argued to an extent that might give Members greater liberty than if thy were confined to separate Amendments.

Mr. THURTLE: I would respectfully submit that it would be very undesirable indeed to get the conflicting issues of cowardice and desertion mixed up in one general discussion. I think there would be a tenency for the discussion to range over the whole area, so that the definite point would be obscured. Whatever may be done about the other Amendments, I suggest that you allow this particular one to be discussed separately.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: In all these matters it is my desire to meet the wishes of the Committee, arid if the Committee desires a general discussion I shall be prepared to consent to it. On the particular issue raised by the hon. Member for Shoreditch (Mr. Thurtle), a Division, if necessary, on his Amendment could afterwards be taken and a discussion, so long as there was no repetition of arguments used in the general discussion.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: The hon. Member for Shoreditch (Mr. Thurtle) is not alone in protesting against a general discussion, and I hope that there will not be a general discussion. The Amendments standing in the name of the Member for North West Hull (Sir A. Lambert Ward) and others on the other side deal with a separate issue, and the Amendment in the name of the Member for Shoreditch and others is to narrow the penalty for certain military offences and to deal particularly with the one offence of desertion. The object of that Amendment is to remove the death penalty for desertion. If we are to have a general discussion with a discussion on cowardice and crimes in the field it will be unfair to those of us who wish to narrow the voting down to that point.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I certainly could not allow a general discussion unless it were agreeable to the whole Committee. Therefore, I suggest one discussion on the Amendments in the name of the hon. and gallant Member for North-West Hull (Sir A. Lambert Ward).

Dr. MORRIS-JONES: I would like to say, for myself and several other Members, that we prefer a general discussion on the full subject rather than on a number of Amendments, with the proviso that there will be no objection to any Member speaking again on a particular aspect which he has in mind. I feel that a very big question of principle is involved in these Amendments and I think it would be for the convenience of the Committee generally to have a discussion on the whole principle.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: May I suggest to the hon. Member for Shore-ditch and others that we might have a general discussion, it being understood that when the particular Amendment to which he refers is subsequently put there can be a limited number of speeches upon the particular issues involved in that Amendment.

Captain HALL: It seems to me that the Committee cannot possibly discuss the question of desertion without bringing in frequently references to cowardice and the difference or the lack of difference between these various offences. If we do as you, Mr. Dunnico, have suggested, may we afterwards, in the subsequent Debate, talk about cowardice as if the earlier Debate ranging over the whole field had not taken place?

Lieut.-Colonel Sir A. LAMBERT WARD: Would it meet the wishes of the Committee if I moved the first Amendment standing in my name and if we then had a discussion on the first three Amendments on the Paper which are independent. They deal with one subject and one subject only; and I suggest that we might have a reasonably wide discussion on those three Amendments, and leave the remaining two Amendments to be dealt with subsequently. If it suits the Committee, I am perfectly ready to agree to that course.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The first three Amendments in the name of the
hon. and gallant Member are certainly interdependent, and they can be discussed together.

Sir A. LAMBERT WARD: I beg to move, in page 4, line 7, after the word "In," to insert the words "paragraph (7) of."
If hon. Members turn to page 4 of the Bill and read Sub-section (1) of Clause 5, they will see that the effect of this Amendment, taken with the two succeeding Amendments on the Paper, would be to make the Sub-section read as follows:
In paragraph (7) of Section four, 'misbehaves or' shall be omitted and in Section five, after paragraph (6) the following paragraph shall be inserted: 'or misbehaves before the enemy in such a manner as to show cowardice.'
Many years ago a famous American soldier described war. He was General Ulysses Grant who commanded the Federal Forces during the later days of the American Civil War. He was a man of very few words, and he said, "War is just hell." What we are discussing to-night is just one small corner of what, in my opinion, can never be anything else but hell especially to the ordinary private soldier in an infantry battalion. As one rises in rank, although responsibility increases war becomes much less hellish. There is not the least doubt about that. It is perfectly true that I started the War with the exalted rank of a company commander, but in a very few weeks I had lost all my officers and my company was down to lees than platoon strength and did platoon work. In addition to that, many of the men in my company were men of my own walk in life whom I had known personally before the War and with whom I was in the habit of carrying on conversation, so perhaps I can say that I am able to appreciate the views of the ordinary man in the line as well as any commissioned officer who had not the honour of serving as a private.
There is one simple axiom with regard to this problem and it is this. There is no justice in the death penalty any more than there is any justice in war. War is the absolute negation of justice and equity; and if a Government is foolish enough to go to war, the nation has to win that war, or else the state of a country such as this would be too terrible to contemplate. [An Hon. MEMBER: "Or
else throw over the Government!"] If we had not won the late War, chaos and starvation would have run riot from one end of this country to the other. [Hon. MEMBERS: "What about Germany?"] I saw it and I am very glad that I will not see chaos and starvation running on similar lines through this country. That is why I say that if a Government goes to war, the manhood of the country has to win that war, however foolish the war may be and however ill-prepared the nation may have been in attempting it. The effect of these Amendments briefly would be to remove from the province of the death penalty an individual case of cowardice such as a man might be guilty of under stress of circumstances. The death penalty would not longer be enforced for offences such as that, but it would remain in force for the offence of inducing some other man to behave in a cowardly manner. It may seem to some hon. Members that that distinction is rather finely drawn and I admit that it would be rather difficult for me to explain exactly where the difference lies if I did not crave the indulgence of the Committee to give an illustration of what I mean.
For that purpose, I should like to draw a brief picture of the state of affairs on the Western Front in December, 1914, and January, 1915. I choose that particular period because it was then that the first execution took place—I think I am right in saying the first execution of a British white soldier for a purely military offence for very many years. In this way I think I can show the Committee the difference between a cowardly act committed by the individual man him-helf, perhaps under stress of circumstances and the act, which I consider infinitely more serious, of tempting or inducing his comrades to act in a similar manner. As everbody knows at the end of 1914 the line was more or less established where it remained practically throughout the war. Practically a continuous line of trenches ran from Switzerland to the sea, and seven skeleton British Divisions were holding the line south of La Bassé. Although trenches had been dug in the line, there were no communication trenches. Such as had already been dug had filled with water and were quite impassable, which meant that all reliefs and ration parties had to go by what we called "the over-land route." The
enemy, being fully aware of that fact, kept up a steady rifle and machine gun fire throughout the night. It was not serious; it was just unpleasant, and, going up on relief, one perhaps had two or three casualties, but it was enough to keep the nerves of the men taut and always on the strain.
So much for the position. Now for the men. Practically the whole of the Expeditionary Force had been knocked out during the preceding fighting, and the ranks, the commissioned ranks as well, had been filled with not too good material. There were men from various reserve units who were not too well trained and, what was perhaps even more serious, who were hopelessly unfit, as a result of the hardships they were undergoing. They were wet through day after day and night after night, and indifferently fed—although I grant that there was plenty of it—and they had reached a state of debility which, unless I had seen it myself, I would never have believed possible. In the average platoon, which contains the man who might be called a potential coward, not more than two men would have passed fit for duty under normal circumstances. They were what had been described as "exhausted, mud-stained scarecrows."
It might be said that men like that ought to have been taken out of the line and rested and refitted. Of course, they ought, but they were the only men we had, the only men the country had at that time, thanks to our having been hurled into war practically without preparation. These mud-stained scarecrows were the only men standing between the enemy and the Channel ports. Consequently, they had to be sent up to the line whether they were fit or not, but in many cases they could scarcely drag themselves the necessary mile and a half. In addition, we could not get our ration parties up, and the men had to be laden, in addition to their great coats, rifles and equipment, with two extra bandoliers of ammunition, three days' rations, an iron ration, and, in all probability, a sack of coke as well. It was as much as a fit man could stand, and in many cases it was more than they could carry.
We now get our potential coward, and he is going up to the line. Presently, from sheer exhaustion, he falls into the mud. He is too exhausted to rise, and
his comrades are too exhausted to care whether he is alive or dead. When he gets up he finds that his platoon has disappeared in the dark. He stumbles round a little, and finds a ruined farm. He goes into it and finds some straw on which he lies and goes to sleep. When morning breaks, he still does not know where he is. He eats a little food, and if he is lucky he catches a chicken, kills it and cooks it, and for three days he stops there, having rather a good time. He then wonders where he is going to rejoin his comrades. There is not much difficulty about that. He waits until units come down; he challenges them, and if one answers he joins it, and in nine cases out of 10 he does it without his absence having been noticed.
The next time the unit goes up to the line, that man does the same thing again, this time without any excuse. He has had three days' rest that the other men have not had, and, what is infinitely worse, he takes his best chum or a couple of them with him. He tempts them also to do a cowardly act. That sort of thing ran like wildfire through the division, from one end to the other, and it had to be stopped. I am not going to weary the Committee with how it was stopped, but the point is that, if one man falls out under circumstances like that, he is not going to affect to any extent the success of our country's arms, but if he tempts other men to do it, and if they do it in large numbers, as they were doing, it becomes a most serious thing. I am not pretending that those men were doing anything which in civil law would render them deserving to be shot, but, after all, war is hell, and if we do go to war we have to win it, or we have to do our best to win it; otherwise, the state of thin country would be too appalling to contemplate.
That is the difference—one man committing an act through exhaustion without premeditation, the other man not only committing an act with premeditation, but tempting his comrades to do it with him. That is a thing which, as long as discipline is necessary, cannot be overlooked. One can overlook the one man acting through weakness, but one cannot overlook it when he tempts his comrades to do the same. It is because I believe that we all hope that there is going to be no more war—[Laughter]
The right hon. Gentleman on the other side laughs, and he evidently does not share the belief of many people on his side of the Committee who think that the League of Nations is going to do everything. I sincerely hope that he is wrong, but it is because sooner or later some Government might do the same thing that the Government did in 1914, and hurl this country in a war, perhaps in defence of a scrap of paper, a war for which we are hopelessly unprepared, that I consider this Amendment is necessary.

Lieut.-Colonel HENEAGE: I should like to add one or two words in support of what my hon. and gallant Friend has said. Take the South African War and the attitude adopted towards cowardice. If a battery of artillery put their guns behind a hill and fired by indirect fire, the soldiers of the infantry said there was cowardice on the part of the battery commander. The time has come when cowardice should be defined. The cowardice of an individual now is a very different thing compared with the cowardice of the individual many years ago in previous wars. I share with my hon. and gallant Friend the hope that we shall not have any more wars, and certainly not in this generation, but if there are any more wars, we are setting a dangerous precedent entirely to eliminate cowardice from the death penalty. If we eliminate cowardice, there is no penalty so drastic to be imposed as the penalty to which a man who is not a coward is liable by remaining under fire.
The elimination of cowardice from the death penalty has been tried before, and it showed that there was a distinct danger of the rank and file taking matters into their own hands. While I am not certain whether, in the British Army, where there is a death penalty, there are definite cases where the rank and file took matter into their own hands against cowardice, in certain other armies it was certainly true that the rank and file brought to the summary court-martial of lynch law comrades of their own for cowardice. That is a dangerous situation, and it is far better that there should be a penalty with limitations than that men should be encouraged to take the law into their own hands.

Sir GERALD HURST: It seems to me that a very great distinction is to be
drawn between those two classes of war crimes. Cowardice per se stands on a totally different footing from those war crimes which are cold, calculated and deliberate. Personally, I am very glad indeed that the Secretary of State for War has had the courage to propose the abolition of the death penalty for cowardice, but I agree with the hon. and gallant Member who moved the Amendment that there is a distinction between the offence of cowardice and the offence of inducing other people to be cowards. It has always seemed to me an abominable thing that where, owing to exhaustion, or shock, or exposure to long privations, a volunteer, perhaps untrained or only partly trained, has given way to nerves, he should run the risk of the death penalty, while men who have not volunteered are living at home in ease and comfort.
There is no volition behind the offence of cowardice when it is not deliberate cowardice. Moreover, the punishment for cowardice is extraordinarily capricious. Not one case in a hundred, not one case in a thousand, in which men have given way under shock and strain is ever brought before a court martial at all. The reason for that is that the ordinary non-commissioned officer and the ordinary officer realise that there is nothing wrong with the man who gives way under the strain of nerves and the privations of war, and that, if he is properly dealt with within the unit, he can become a good soldier again and that there is no need to drag the reputation of the regiment through the mud or to impose upon the man the risk of the death penalty.
Not one case in a thousand is reported, and when a case does go before court martial, in the great majority of instances the court will be inclined to strain the law and strain its findings in order to relieve the man of the death penalty if there are such extenuating circumstances. As showing, again, how capricious the punishment is, when the matter comes before the confirming authorities, in the large majority of cases these extenuating circumstances will be taken into consideration; so that it really is the thousandth chance which brings upon a man the death penalty, and there is no guarantee that this thousandth chance will involve the worst of cases. That is
a second reason why I think it is a good thing the death penalty for cowardice standing alone should be abolished. The third reason is that we all know in how many cases a man who has given way to panic under the shock of war has been able to make good under the system of suspended sentences. In the large majority of cases a man redeems his position and retrieves his honour.
In my submission, there is a great difference between that type of offence and deliberate and calculated offences in the nature of war crimes, such as the offence to which my hon. and gallant Friend referred—the offence of inducing in cold blood other people to commit an act of cowardice. That offence is very much nearer in its nature to the offence of mutiny and desertion. In the case of a man who gives way under the shock of war service, the death penalty is no deterrent, because when a man loses his balance and his self-control he does not calculate, "Is this offence punishable by penal servitude or the death penalty?" But in deliberate and cold blooded war crimes, like inducing somebody else to commit an act of cowardice, or to desert or to commit an act of treason, it can be said to be a deterrent. In the one case there is no calculation as to the penalty, but in the other the death penalty does operate as a real deterrent. A good officer and a good non-commissioned officer can deal with eases where men's nerves give way, and normally there is no need to court-martial a man at all, but they cannot deal with cold-blooded and calculated acts like inducing other people to commit acts of cowardice, or like desertion. When a country is at war, with its back to the wall, it has to rely upon the help and the good service of its soldiers. The soldier has to help the State or the State will perish, and the safety of the people then becomes the highest law. While I feel that the country and the Army ought to be grateful to the Secretary of State for War for having removed the death penalty in the ease of cowardice, I feel there is a great and fundamental distinction between that offence and the offence which has been alluded to by the hon. and gallant Member who moved this Amendment, and also other offences.

Major-General Sir ROBERT HUTCHISON: As an old soldier I have come to the view which the Secretary of State for War has taken, and therefore I welcome the alteration in the Army Act in respect of the offence of cowardice. After all, anyone who has had service in the field knows the extraordinary strain under which men, and especially private soldiers, suffer, and I look upon a man whose brain goes under that stress as being wounded—wounded mentally. I am in a difficulty about the Amendment moved by my hon. and gallant Friend. I see great difficulty in distinguishing whether an individual has induced others to act in a cowardly way or whether a collection of people who have been together have acted together in a cowardly way. I can see that there would be difficulty on the part of the courts in convicting, and we want the law to be so clear, that there is no doubt or difficulty when a case comes before a court.
There were many cases in war where it was difficult to induce the courts to convict of desertion, because they were not very sure in their minds whether it was a case of general desertion or of constructive desertion. Sub-section (6) of Clause 4 of the Army Act speaks of a man who:
Knowingly does, when on active service, an act calculated to oppose the success of His Majesty's forces.
If a man had done anything which, might be said to imperil the success of the troops he might be tried under that Sub-section, and, therefore, perhaps it would be unwise to complicate the removal of the death penalty for cowardice by leaving subject to the death penalty those who had been guilty of cowardice in inducing others to act in a cowardly manner. There is a great deal to be said on both sides, but looking at it from the point of view of an old soldier trying to keep his men together and to deal with the really bad cases which one does, unfortunately, find, I think that on the whole I should be inclined to vote against the Amendment simply from the point of view of administration and of helping the courts to deal with these cases. Clause 4 of the Army Act can always be brought into operation.

Major HILLS: I am afraid that I shall be obliged to vote against the Amendment which has been moved by my hon.
and gallant Friend. I cannot see what good you can do by shooting a man for cowardice, neither do I see that by carrying out a sentence of that kind you strengthen the nerves of the comrades of the man who is shot. I have heard it argued that, unless you impose a penalty of this kind, the man who has to go on some of those dangerous enterprises in war goes forward with more confidence when he know that the man on his right and on his left will be shot unless they go forward as well, and, although he himself may be quite a brave man and does not require that stimulus, the fact that that state of things exists causes that man to advance with greater courage. I know that you cannot look into a man's heart and see what influences are at work, but I should be surprised if any man said to himself, "I shall go forward, because the man on my right and the man on my left will go forward as well or else they will be shot." I do not see what good you do to the courage of the other man by retaining that penalty.
Cowardice affects people in very different ways. I know the story of a very distinguished man who had performed acts of gallantry who went up a hill in Scotland. He was missed in a thunderstorm, and was subsequently found buried in a hole with his face against the ground. If the Germans had ordered me to climb to the top of a steeple and look down I am certain that I should have shown cowardice. The danger seems to be quite varied and uncertain in its incidence, and for that reason I would not shoot a man for cowardice. Where a man is engaged regularly in the Army you may be right in shooting him for cowardice, but you have not the same right in the case of civilian volunteers. You have no right to take a man from the factory or the farm and put him into khaki and a tin hat, and then shoot him if he shows cowardice. I submit to hon. Members that the question is not what it was in the old days of soldiering. It is quite a different question now, and I think the Government have done quite right in abolishing the penalty.

Mr. OSWALD LEWIS: It seems to me that to-night we are discussing circumstances which only arise in the event of
war, with the result that the arguments and statements which might be commonplace at the front have a certain strange and unreal bearing in this Chamber tonight. As I understand it, this Amendment accepts the suggestion of the Secretary of State for War that cowardice should no longer be a crime subject to the death penalty. The Amendment accepts that, but it says that where the man acts in a manner which induces others to be cowards the penalty shall prevail. The hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Montrose (Sir R. Hutchison) suggested that the alteration which is now proposed should not be made because of the difficulty of applying the proposal if it were made. I submit that that is hardly a valid argument against the Amendment, because, in such a case, the onus of proof should lie upon those who desire to have the man shot, and they would have to show that a man had in fact acted in a way that would cause other men to be cowards, and, if that could not be shown, then the offender could not be brought under that part of the Act.
May I put the matter in this way? I suppose that nearly every Member of this House agrees that the ultimate object of all democratic institutions is to secure the greatest good for the greatest number. I think it is in that light that this Amendment should be considered, and not out of a desire to punish an individual. This Amendment is being proposed out of a desire to preserve the moral of the other members of the force engaged, and ultimately to save life. If this Committee, from perhaps not an unreasonable distaste of the idea of having a man shot in cold blood, proceeds to negative this Amendment, the only possible effect that such a course of action would have would be ultimately to cause loss of life in the Army, because the whole purpose of the Amendment is to prevent something being done which might destroy the moral of a unit. For that reason, I, for one, hope that the Committee will accept the distinction made in the Amendment, and will agree with the Secretary of State for War so far as cowardice is concerned, but will not go so far as to say chat a man in time of war can encourage others to behave as cowards, and so destroy the moral of his unit, and, having thereby
indirectly caused much loss of life among his fellows, shall himself continue to live.

Colonel Sir GEORGE COURTHOPE: I think that my right hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Ripon (Major Mills) has misunderstood the purport of this Amendment. The object of the Amendment is to differentiate between the case of individual cowardice when a man's nerve fails, and the case of the man who, being a coward himself, induces his fellows to behave in a cowardly manner. I think that, if my right hon. and gallant Friend appreciates the purpose of the Amendment, there is very little difference between his object and ours. Those of us who are putting this Amendment forward recognise the justice of the motives which have inspired the Government to remove cases of individual cowardice. from liability to the death penalty. We do not quarrel with that, but we do feel that it is very necessary, in the interests of armed forces, if armed forces are to be employed in the future, and in the interests of their efficiency, to make a definite difference in favour of the individual whose nerve cracks, and against the individual who induces others to misbehave in the presence of the enemy.

Mr. SHAW: Perhaps I might take this opportunity of making a fairly broad general statement, so that the Committee may be under no misapprehension as to the position of the Government on these Amendments. I think I owe it, to the Committee to say that, when this matter was under consideration, I consulted the Army Council, as I thought I ought to do, and I am going to give to the Committee their opinions just as frankly as those opinions were given to me. The military members of the Army Council were of the opinion that the death penalty for cowardice was a deterrent which prevented many a man from being a coward. and possibly saved many lives through the deterrent effect of the penalty being powerful enough to prevent the occurrence of cowardice. That was also their opinion, very strongly felt, with regard to what has been called the crime of desertion. I said to the military members of the Army Council that I would quite frankly state their view to the Committee, in order that the Committee might be under no misapprehension as to what the military opinion was. But
this Committee and the House are the persons who must decide policy, and, while I have every respect for the military members of the Army Council, and value the fact that I work in collaboration with them, I cannot share their opinions so far as the crime of cowardice is concerned.
9.0 p.m.
I do not need to argue on the question of cowardice per se. Every speaker up to the present has admitted the case for the Government in taking individual cowardice out of the list of crimes for which men may be shot in time of war. Another thing has been shown, namely, that these questions are not party questions. They cut clean across all parties in the House, and, consequently, ought to be treated in a non-party way. I cannot agree to the Amendment which has been moved, because, if cowardice in itself is not a crime for which the death penalty ought to be inflicted, I cannot see how a man can be guilty of a mortal crime by making other people cowards. Neither do I believe that this Amendment is necessary to deal with the case of a man who deliberately takes action which is equivalent to mutiny. I do not think that there ought to be a Clause which will leave itself open to any misapprehension whatever, and I believe that mutiny fully covers the action which the hon. and gallant Member has in mind. It is impossible to conceive that, if a man deliberately suborns his comrades to break their, orders and desert, any reasonable person could hold that to be anything but mutiny. If the object of this Amendment is to provide that men who take this action shall be punished, that provision is already in the Bill. I cannot argue on the wider aspect, as I would rather like to do, because of the Ruling which has been given, although, if we had had the whole thing out in a general discussion, it might have been better. This, however, I will say, that, so far as I am personally concerned, the whole question whether the death penalty ought to be inflicted or not depends on action taken by a man of his own free will, well knowing what he is doing. There is no Member in the House who asks for the actual abolition of the death penalty in time of war. The question is, for what shall the death penalty be inflicted? Obviously, everyone agrees that
it ought not to be inflicted on a man whose condition, owing to the circumstances in which he has been living, is such that he is not responsible for his actions. There is, however, general agreement in the House that the death penalty ought to be inflicted on a man who deliberately does something which endangers the lives of his comrades and the welfare of the Forces in the field. [Interruption.] If anyone does not say that, all that I have to say is that the Amendments on the Paper show that there is evidently that feeling in the House.
The Government cannot accept this Amendment, or any of the Amendments to this Clause. They hold that the death penalty ought not to be inflicted on men of this type, that it ought not to be inflicted for offences of this type. I should like to refer for a moment to the very eloquent speech of the hon. and gallant Member who moved this Amendment. He showed us modern war in all its horror. There may have been a romance in war when man met man, and when a man could see his enemy and fight his enemy. There is no romance in mud, vermin, and shell and shot, where men are destroyed without a possible chance of seeing the enemy they are fighting. There is no romance in that; it is simply brutality, dirt, disease and death. I hope that we shall have no more war. I rather regret these discussions, because the very fact that we have them seems to indicate that we are expecting in a short time another war, and are making preparations for men to be shot—[An Hon. MEMBER: "So does the Army Bill!"] The Army Bill is an annual Measure that must be brought before the House. The fact of the matter is that we are discussing something which I hope it will never be necessary to put into force in any way; but, on the pure ground of the theory which I am hoping will never become the practice, the Government must stick to their guns and decline to accept this Amendment.

Mr. GUINNESS: We have heard a very unusual admission from the Secretary of State, that in the matter of the death penalty he is in disagreement with the advice of the Army Council.

Mr. SHAW: I am a member of the Army Council, and so is the Under-Secretary.

Mr. GUINNESS: I did not wish to suggest that there is any split in the civil members of the Council. Let me make it clear that there is no misrepresentation by saying the right hon. Gentleman admits that he differs in opinion from his military advisers, and that is a very rare condition in this House. He went so far as to deprecate the suggestion that the Army should be made fit and ready for war, because he said war is such a terrible condition that he does not want to contemplate it. That is a very unusual and, I think, a very dangerous frame of mind for a Secretary of State responsible for one of our fighting services. It is quite evident that he has taken to the War Office pre-conceived nations which have been expressed by many of his Cabinet colleagues in the annually recurring Debates on this subject in former years.
It is very important for us to remember how definitely these views have been expressed and the arguments which have been put forward in their support. Year by year, certainly since 1923 when it fell to my lot to answer for the War Office in this Debate, we have had demands for the relaxation of the death penalty in various forms and in different degrees. The present First Commissioner of Works said on this Bill seven years ago that he wanted to make a speech against any Army, any Air Force, or any fighting force at all, and when he found he could not do that he said if he was to choose whether to argue for no Army at all or for an Army without discipline, he would argue for an Army without discipline, as that would he no Army at all.

Captain HALL: On a point of Order. May I ask if the right hon. Gentleman's observations are not out of Order?

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I understand the right hon. Gentleman to be arguing the question of discipline—in the Forces.

Mr. GUINNESS: I am arguing on a wise limit to impose upon the death penalty. I am stating the opinion of hon. Members opposite when they were in opposition as expressed by the present
First Commissioner of Works. He stated that the Army as at present constituted was a disciplined Army.
It is disciplined mainly by fear. Everyone who knows anything about the Army, whether from the inside or the outside, is perfectly aware that the one thing that holds it together and makes men submit to the iron discipline is the fear of death. During times of war it is the death penalty that keeps men up to the scratch."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 9th April, 1923; col. 1022, Vol. 162.]
I do not accept that. I think the account of Army moral given by the First Commissioner of Works is an absolute libel on the courage and patriotism of our national effort in which millions of men took part during the War. Hon. Members opposite disapprove altogether of armed forces, and surely it is unwise for us, if we are going to have armed forces and to secure their efficiency, to go upon the advice of those who wish to destroy that efficiency in the details of their organisation and the system upon which they are based. We all know that the death penalty, especially in war, inflicted on a comrade by men who fought by his side is a most horrible form of punishment, but war is a terrible thing in any form, and it is quite misleading to look at war from a peace perspective. The conditions are absolutely abnormal and in complete contrast to the conditions of justice and punishment in peace time. Imprisonment is quite ineffective as a deterrent. A man who wishes to shirk his duty longs for imprisonment as a means of escape from those conditions which he dislikes, knowing perfectly well that at the end of the war there is an invariable amnesty for all offences.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I am sorry to interrupt the right hon. Gentleman, but this Debate is really confined to a distinction as to whether the death penalty shall be applied in specific cases. We cannot have a general discussion on these Amendments.

Mr. GUINNESS: It is very difficult to dissociate the Amendment from the general argument in favour of death penalty. We believe that, though the death penalty is unnecessary for the vast majority of the Army, for it is a libel to say they are held together by the fear of death, it is a necessary deterrent in the case of certain offences. We believe that in this matter we should go rather by
the opinion of those who have a practical knowledge of the Army, the people who have to fight in the Army if there ever is a war, rather than upon the opinion of people who have expressed their views merely from political expediency in this House. We have already relaxed the death penalty. We had in the case of the former Labour Government a Debate on very much the same lines as this when the Government were embarrassed by their votes and opinions in Opposition.
The last Labour Government set up a Committee to go into the question of the offences for which the death penalty should be retained. Certain alleviations were recommended. My right hon. Friend, in the Army Annual Bill of 1925, carried the Amendments which were necessary to give the full lightening of the death sentence which this Committee, set up by his predecessor, recommended. The Government in the Army Annual Bill, as it stands, wish to go much further than their present experts recommend, and further than their own Committee of 1924 thought advisable. We do not suggest that the report of any Committee should necessarily bind the Committee or the Government. We have looked at this matter with an open mind and we have come to the conclusion that a fair line to draw is one between the mental state of cowardice, which may be a matter of opinion, and the overt act of inducing his comrades to show cowardice which is a matter more easily tested by definite evidence. If a man is a coward and does not interfere with the general discipline of the unit, if he does not endanger the military operations in which he is involved, we are agreed that there is a case for the abolition of the death penalty in his case. But there is a very definite line between that case and the action of inducing others to impair the success of military operations.
There is a very definite distinction between a man's fears and cowardice under the old dispensation, and the definite act of deserting his post or inducing others to do the same. Those actions not only endanger the lives of his comrades, but they prejudice the chance of military success. The right hon. Gentleman has told us that he does not believe that there is any necessity for us to keep the offences which are proposed to be retained as a ground for the death penalty under my hon. and gallant
Friend's Amendment because he believes that they are already covered. If that is so, I cannot believe that the Army Act would have indicated them twice over, and if they really do cover the same ground and only that ground, and if that ground is a reasonable cause for the death penalty, it seems wise that they should be retained. In view of the right hon. Gentleman's statement that in this matter he is going against the advice of his military advisers on the Army Council it would be most unwise of the Committee to agree to his proposal. It is most essential that we should do everything in our power to retain the sanction for military discipline which is held by his military advisers to be necessary for the efficiency of our troops and for our success in any future war.

Mr. R. MORRISON: The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Guinness) seems to have based his whole case upon the expert opinion being against this proposal. Time after time we return to the point that expert opinion is against it, but I would remind the right hon. Gentleman and the Committee that as far as those of us on these benches who have no inside knowledge of the wonderful and mysterious ways in which expert opinion expresses itself are able to judge, expert opinion was against the abolition of flogging in the Army. Even the right hon. Gentleman himself, since I have been in this House, has got up and opposed the abolition of the death penalty for offences which are no longer upon the Statute Book, because expert opinion could not see its way to recommend their abolition. Year after year in this House expert opinion stoutly defended what soldiers called crucifixion—Field Punishment No. 1, and year after year representatives of the Government rose from the Front Bench and said that they were advised by expert opinion that Field Punishment No. 1 was a deterrent and that it should not be abolished, otherwise discipline would go to pieces. When Field Punishment No. 1, flogging in the Army, and offence after offence for which the death penalty has been inflicted were abolished, we had exactly the same argument that the discipline of the Army would go to pieces.
The argument of the right hon. Gentleman was that if in time of war a man could get himself put into prison, it was safer for him than being anywhere near the enemy. That was the point which the right hon. Gentleman made. What is there in that point? It is well known that in the last war—and all arguments are based on what happened in the last war—time after time, when men were sentenced to long terms of imprisonment, the imprisonment did not commence immediately. They had to go with their units into the line, and after the units came back again they were put into prison and served their sentences. The fact that they had been sentenced to long terms of imprisonment did not enable them to escape from danger. I hope that the Committee will make no mistake to-night in abolishing still another crime, even though we have been told that the Army Council and the experts say it will not be a deterrent. Their mentality seems to move in a direction which reminds one of Mr. Bumble's dictum:
The poor in the lump is bad.
It appears that in the opinion of the experts soldiers in the lump are bad. The only thing that appeals to them, every time there is a Debate of this kind, is that the death penalty is a deterrent. That seems to be the only factor which appeals to people who call themselves expert militarists. I think that the word "deterrent" in these Debates is very much overworked, and I am glad that the Government have had the courage to abolish another offence.

Sir HILTON YOUNG: rose—

HON. MEMBERS: Divide!

Sir H. YOUNG: The observations of the Secretary of State for War have left the Committee in a very real doubt, which I feel confident I can succeed in making clear to the right hon. Gentleman. [An HON. MEMBER: "Divide!"]

HON. MEMBERS: Order, order.

Mr. KIRKWOOD: It is perfectly in order.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The cry of "Divide, divide" is not perfectly in order if it becomes prolonged and interferes unduly with the discussion.

Mr. KIRKWOOD: On a point of Order. We have taken the highest
authority on the Rules of the House, and it is to the effect that "Divide, divide" is in perfect order. It has been done by the Tory party time and time again, and Lord Robert Cecil kept up "Divide, "divide" to the then Prime Minister, Mr. Asquith, and got him to sit down, but it took him two hours to do it, and we are going to do it.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member must allow me to be the highest authority on this occasion. I am supported by all my predecessors in Ruling that the cry of "Divide, divide," unduly and unnecessarily prolonged, it not in order.

Mr. BECKETT: Would it be in order to signify agreement?

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: To signify agreement in such a way as to become a nuisance to the Debate, would not be in order.

Mr. KIRKWOOD: Further to that point of Order. I have no desire to fall foul of you, Mr. Dunnico, but our information is that we are in perfect order, and there is no authority or power in the House to stop us, but, if you say so, we will obey you, but we are not going to obey those people opposite, though we will abide by your Ruling.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member knows I should not give a harsh Ruling against him, but I ask him to accept my assurance that there is a long succession of authoritative decisions in support of the Ruling that I have given.

Sir H. YOUNG: I cannot but think that in a matter involving the death penalty, if there is any doubt whether the Committee has a clear basis for a decision, it ought to be removed before we pass to a Division. In seeking to arrive at that basis, the observations of the Secretary of State for War suggested to me a contradiction which I am sure he will desire to remove, if he agrees with me that there is some cause of doubt. It is this. We are dealing here with two sorts of offences. There is misbehaviour first of all in such a manner as to show cowardice, and, secondly, in inducing other people to misbehave in such a manner as to show cowardice. If I follow the right hon. Gentleman's argument as regards the second case it is this. It proceeds under two headings. He says, in the
first place, that nobody can very reasonably argue, as a major offence, such as misbehaving in such a manner as to show cowardice, is not a capital one, that what he would describe as the minor offence of inducing others to misbehave in such a manner as to show cowardice, could be a capital offence, and so his first argument is that misbehaving in such a manner as to show cowardice is not a capital offence. The second heading of the argument is that misbehaving in such a manner as to show cowardice is really indistinguishable from mutiny, and it comes under the same class as mutiny. If that is so, since mutiny is a capital offence, then this second offence of inducing others is also a capital offence. So we see that the arguments of the right hon. Gentlemen are really mutually destructive.
Under these circumstances, what I want to ask him is this. The right hon. Gentleman has expressed his own very strong opinion that inducing others to show cowardice is mutiny, and therefore punishable with the capital penalty. His opinion carries very great weight. This is undoubtedly a legal matter on which the House is entitled to some legal assistance, and, since we have the advantage of the presence of the senior Law Officer of the Crown, may we have an expression of opinion from him to assist the Committee as to whether or not inducing others to misbehave before the enemy in such a manner as to show cowardice, does or does not amount to the offence of mutiny according to the interpretation of the law? Very much will turn, as regards the votes of some on this side, upon what opinion is expressed on that matter. I think the Committee is undoubtedly entitled to the advantage of the assistance of the Attorney-General, and I have no doubt that it will be granted.

Rear-Admiral BEAMISH: I rise to express my views and to say that I am in favour of the death penalty not only for cowardice, but for the other instances that have been mentioned. We all of us suffer from fear. I am suffering from it at the present moment, but I should be a coward if I sat down and did not say what I feel. Cowardice is not a wilful act. It comes to anybody. We all of us have suffered from fear. I maintain most clearly that this death penalty
should be retained for cowardice, as it has been mentioned by the Secretary of State for War that he was so advised by the military members of the Army Council. After all, the necessity for success in war is absolute paramount. One coward may lose a battle, one battle may lose a war, and one war may lose a country. That being so, every possible check should be placed on anything that is going to bring about the loss of a battle or a war. Fear is perfectly natural. It comes to all people. The man who conquers fear is a, hero, but the man who is conquered by fear is a coward, and he deserves all he gets.

Mr. SCRYMGEOUR: rose—

HON. MEMBERS: Divide!

Mr. SCRYMGEOUR: Other hon. Members have been able to state their case quite freely, and I hope nobody will object to my few remarks. I am very much gratified that the Secretary of State has seen fit to take this step with regard to the abolition of the death penalty for what has been termed cowardice. He has gone against the military advisers of the Army Council. In that, he has done well, and it is very gratifying from the standpoint that this Committee ought to be very strongly in support of every step of this kind against those who seem to have been so relentless in their cold-blooded attitude. The so-called experts have every time been against removing this death penalty.
A young lad, who went voluntarily and not as a conscript into the War, and who found himself in a difficulty due to the breakdown of his nerves, was shot because of alleged cowardice. It was very gratifying to find that when a memorial was to be erected to record the names of those who had fallen in the War, and those who were not at the War were keenly anxious to prevent that lad's name from being inscribed on the memorial, the ex-service men said: "That was a brave man, and his name must go on the memorial or that memorial will not stand." It was very gratifying, further, to find that so determined were those men who had gone through the War and who knew what it means for that young lad, that they declared that if the memorial went up without his name on it it certainly would come down. There-
fore, the name of the lad was inscribed on the memorial. I mention that incident to-night because it is very gratifying that the Secretary of State for War has taken the step which he has announced. We desire to encourage him in taking every such step against the advice of cold-blooded experts.

Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: I was not in the House to hear the whole of the speech of the Secretary of State for War, but I gather that he said that, so far as those who induced others to misbehave before the enemy in such a manner as to show cowardice, and also in regard to those who, without orders, left a picket or guard or discharged firearms or—[Interruption].

Mr. SHAW: The right hon. Gentleman did not hear the argument, and, with the utmost courtesy, I cannot be expected to answer misstatements of argument.

Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: The reason why I was not here was that I was engaged in the previous Debate up to the last moment, and the requirements of nature are such that I had to leave the House for a relatively short time. It is the common failure of most of us that, at some time or other, we require food. I was hoping that the right hon. Gentleman would correct me if I had misstated the argument, which is the last thing I want to do. I may be incorrectly informed, but I understood that in regard to the first Amendment it was said to be unnecessary because it was already covered by the Army Act, in that anyone who induced—I notice that the Attorney-General is leaving the House. I hope he will remain, because I desire to put a question to him.

Mr. BECKETT: On a point of Order. Is not the Attorney-General as much entitled to leave the House as the right hon. Gentleman?

The CHAIRMAN: That is not a point of Order.

Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: The Secretary of State for War, as I understood his arguments, said that those who induced others to misbehave before the enemy are already covered by Section 7 of the Army Act, in that they would be guilty of mutiny. That was what I understood him to say. I am willing to give
way if the right hon. Gentleman desires to correct me.

Mr. SHAW: The hon. Member who introduced the subject gave an illustration of what he meant, and on that illustration I said that that ease was covered by Section 7.

Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: I was going to ask the Law Officer of the Crown to say whether the Amendment which we are moving now is covered by any other portion of the Army Act. I understood the argument to be that it was an unnecessary Amendment in that it was already covered by Section 7, which deals with mutiny. In that case it is not necessary to press the Amendment, but if that is not the case, the Amendment must be pressed. I asked the Attorney-General to remain in the House because the Committee is entitled to have a view expressed on this matter by a Law Officer of the Crown. I do not know whether the point that I have put is true or not, but I should like the Attorney-General to answer.

The ATTORNEY - GENERAL (Sir William Jowitt): Not having heard the speech of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for War, like the right hon. Gentleman, I think it much better to say nothing.

Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: I will ask the Attorney-General a specific question. It is true that he has not heard the speech of the right hon. Gentleman. [HON. MEMBERS: "Neither did you!"] I have said so and I have explained the reason, and I am not in the least ashamed of it. I ask the Attorney-General a specific question. Does the inducing of others to misbehave before the enemy in such a manner as to show cowardice come within Section 7 of the Army Act as the offence of mutiny, and is it therefore punished as mutiny?

Major COLFOX: I should like—[Interruption.] I can remain standing here so long as I am interrupted. I appeal to the Chairman of this very noisy assembly to protect me against the exuberance of hon. Members opposite. It would have been much better for this country if hon. Members had shown the same exuberance and keenness and enthusiasm during the War as they have
shown to-night. [Interruption.] I only rose because I realise that it is very unlikely that the Attorney-General will have the civility to reply to the straight question which my right hon. Friend has addressed to him. After all, this is a professional matter and, therefore, the opinions which have been expressed by hon. Members opposite who have no professional military experience are of no value whatever. [Interruption.] In war time, it is the duty of the General Staff and the military machine to win the war, and if from their professional standpoint they consider that this provision is necessary for the successful prosecution of a war, on which the whole safety of the country and the Empire will depend, their opinion is entitled to receive the support of hon. Members who, unlike myself, have no professional military experience.
The futility of the opinions expressed by people with no knowledge of the subject was instanced only a short while ago by the bon. Member, who said that the proof that professional expert opinion was wrong was found in the fact that since Field Punishment No. I has been abolished it has had no effect on the discipline of the Army. That was the argument. If the hon. Member had any knowledge of the subject he would know that Field Punishment No. I only operates in time of war, and there has been no war, thank goodness, since the day it was abolished. Therefore it is quite impossible to discover what effect the abolition of that punishment will have upon the discipline of the Army in war time. This is a purely professional matter, and the expert opinion of those on whom the responsibility will rest for the prosecution of war must prevail. It is ridiculous for non-professional opinion to be allowed to carry any weight whatever. [interruption.] Seeing that this is a professional matter and that a question of obscure law has been introduced by the Secretary of State for War, and that a direct question has been asked of the Attorney-General which he refuses to answer, I beg leave to move, "That the Committee do report Progress and ask leave to sit again," in order to give the Attorney-General a chance of finding the answer to the question.

Mr. GUINNESS: Cannot we really have an answer. The Attorney-General was, of course, unable to hear the De-
bate, but the Opposition, with no object of prolonging the Debate unnecessarily, do want to clear up certain points. The hon. and gallant Member for North-West Hull (Sir A. Lambert Ward) mentioned a certain offence as being very infectious. A man finds on experience that he could with impunity drop out of the battalion when going to the trenches and on a subsequent occasion he arranges with a pal to loiter. The Secretary of State has told us that it is not necessary to provide for inducing others to show cowardice in this way as a capital offence, because it is already a capital offence under the provisions of the Army Act for mutiny. If that is the case it is, of course, a strong argument against the Amendment and, therefore, we should not want to press it. But we are in this difficulty, on which we want legal help. Section 7 of the Army Act says that anyone inciting to insubordination would be subject to the death penalty and that anyone who causes or conspires with any other person to mutiny or sedition among His Majesty's military forces shall be subject to the death penalty. We wish to have a legal ruling as to whether this Section defining mutiny and insubordination as an offence would render liable to the death penalty a man who arranged with a comrade to loiter and avoid going up to the trenches.

Mr. SHAW: That is not the illustration given by the hon. and gallant Member, and, in the second place, whatever may be the legal opinion the Government is against this Amendment. [Interruption.]

Captain CROOKSHANK: On a point of Order. [HON. MEMBERS: "Divide!"] My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Dorset Western (Major Colfox) has moved to report Progress. Do I understand that it has been refused?

The CHAIRMAN (Mr. Robert Young): Yes.

Captain CROOKSHANK: May I ask whether it is not in order to move to report Progress when one wishes to get a distinct reply from the Minister?

The CHAIRMAN: It is quite in order to move it, and it is quite within the authority of the Chair not to accept it.

Mr. GUINNESS: Can the right hon. Gentleman give us a reply. We only want a short reply. Can the right hon. Gentleman tell us which of the offences we wish to retain as liable to the death penalty is covered by mutiny and, therefore, provided for twice over?

Mr. SHAW: It is not my business to instruct the right hon. Gentleman, but may I call his attention to the fact that Section 7 is not mutiny, merely, but mutiny and sedition?

Mr. GUINNESS: But does sedition cover it?

Sir PATRICK FORD: On a point of Order. I would like very much to know whether we are not entitled—

HON. MEMBERS: Order!

The CHAIRMAN: Dr. Davies.

Dr. VERNON DAVIES: We have had a very interesting discussion, one of the remarkable features of which has been that there has not been the slightest attempt to define what cowardice means. I think this is the sixth Debate on this Bill which I have heard, and I have been every year, more or less, concerned with the effect of the imposition of the death penalty, because I have always had a feeling at the back of my mind that I wondered how far and how often the death penalty was justified. Last year we had a very important Debate on this subject, and a speech which created a very deep impression on my mind was the speech of the present Under-Secretary of State for Air, who, describing his experiences in a certain battle, said that, although intellectually he was absolutely cool, self-contained, and able to observe everything that was going on, yet physically he was in a state of tremor and could not move, and that if an order to advance had been given at that time, he physically could not have done so, so that the question would have arisen whether he was guilty of cowardice. That speech made a very deep impression on my mind, because, from my medical knowledge, I knew that the hon. Gentleman was not suffering from cowardice—far from it—but I wondered if at any time during the War soldiers in his position had been accused of cowardice and been shot for a thing for which they were not responsible.
I was very uneasy, and I said I was prepared to await the speech of the Financial Secretary to the War Office before I gave my vote. When he spoke, he said that he still firmly believed that the death penalty was a deterrent against cowardice, that there was such a thing as cowardice, and that it ought to be severely punished. He went on:
Those people who have the greatest knowledge of warfare, great officers of high standing who have devoted their lives to the study of war, are unanimously in favour of this Bill. As long as we have an Army, as long as there is danger of that Army being engaged in war, we must retain the extreme penalty for times of great crisis and great danger, as affording the sole sanction for the preservation of military discipline."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 26th March, 1929; cols. 2302–3, Vol. 226.]
10.0 p.m.
After hearing that eloquent speech, I decided as a civilian that I was not competent to judge, but that I should take the advice of those authorities. I therefore voted for the Government but to my astonishment, when the Army and Air Force (Annual) Bill of this year was produced, I found that what was impossible last year was possible now, and I was deeply concerned as to what was happening. I saw that the Army Council had gradually, year by year, removed some of the offences liable to the death penalty, and I asked myself, if they were going down year by year, how far they were going. Were they to be trusted, and need we have the death penalty at all? I really was in a state of anxiety until I heard the Secretary of State for War this evening say, quite fairly and distinctly, "We, the present Government, are abolishing the death penalty for certain cases against the advice of our military advisers." [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] Hon. Members opposite applaud that, and I would remind them that in 1924 the then Socialist Government appointed a committee which decided definitely in favour of retaining the death penalty. [An Hon. MEMBER: "The Labour party"].—I am still old-fashioned enough to call the Labour party the Socialist party, and if the time has arrived and they are ashamed of Socialism it is very interesting.
My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for North West Hull (Sir A. Lambert Ward) has put a very definite proposition before the Government which they are not prepared to answer. He
simply shows how in certain instances a man guilty of a certain action, first of all done accidentally and innocently, and who got away with it, later on persuaded other comrades to do it; and he asked if he would then be guilty of cowardice. I understand the right hon. Gentleman opposite to say that he would not be guilty of cowardice, but that he would be guilty of mutiny, and that he would therefore come under another Section. How far are we to trust the knowledge and discretion of the Army Council, and how far are we to trust the knowledge and discretion of the Socialist Government? It is not a matter of an abstract discussion but of vital considerations, because the question of the death penalty is one which may come home to any family in this land; and, on the other hand, the non-infliction of the death penalty may mean the difference between success or failure in war.
To show that the matter has had a certain amount of interest for me, during the last few days I have read the Debates on this Bill for the last three or four years, and I was very astonished, and yet in a way not astonished, to find one hon. Member of this House pointing out that in a certain battalion of which he had knowledge any man who was guilty of cowardice or whom his comrades thought guilty of cowardice was court-martialled by them, and they pronounced sentence, and carried it into effect. If a man's own comrades decide that that comrade has let them down, has played the coward and the sneak, and they have decided that they cannot stand that, are hon. Members opposite prepared to say that one of their own comrades should not be judged by his comrades? [Interruption.]

The CHAIRMAN: I would appeal to hon. Members not to interrupt. I know that they are anxious to get to a Division, but that is not the way to do it.

Dr. DAVIES: If hon. Members care to take the trouble to read, they will see that this is a definite statement, that with regard to this particular man it was decided, not by general headquarters but by his own comrades, that the death sentence should be carried out. Therefore, if a man's own comrades can decide that a man guilty of cowardice and of letting them down deserves the death sentence, I say that the Government are
wrong. If it had been entirely a matter of the vote of the Army Council I should have been suspicious, because year by year they have receded from their position, and once having receded then I say the Army Council are perhaps not to be believed absolutely. But when one reads of a case like this, where a man's own comrades decide that he has been guilty of cowardice and that he deserves the penalty and shoot him, then I say we are going too far in this matter.
We are all anxious that any man who plays the coward, if you can define cowardice, and I agree that it is very difficult to do that, should have proper protection. Last year, in answer to a question, I was assured by the Financial Secretary that no man, because of cowardice, was executed until he was examined by a competent medical board. [Interruption.] By their interjections some Members display their colossal ignorance on this subject. They are perhaps not aware that there are certain nervous diseases where a man is not quite responsible. In such a case his action is due to disease and not to cowardice, and it requires a medical board to decide the matter. There is no Member of this House, or of the public, who would desire that any man should be shot for any crime for which he was not responsible, owing to mental disease. [Interruption.] When the suggestion is made that this poor man, owing to the stress of emotion, may have had to face a court-martial and have been sentenced, and when one suggests that such a man should have a medical board, the only intelligent observation you can get from the other side is "No. 9 Pill." It shows the frame of mind in which hon. Members approach this vital and important question, for we are dealing, not with an abstract question pure and simple, but with a thing that may mean life or death to some poor soldier. If hon. Members care to take the view that no soldier at any time, for any crime, should be shot—[Interruption.] I gather that that is the opinion of some Members. If so, then they should have the courage to say, "We will abolish the death penalty for everything." That evidently is desired of many hon. Members opposite, and, if we have the misfortune to see the present Government in office next year,
we shall probably find them bringing in a Bill to express the wishes of some of the hon. Members. At present, we are not prepared to go so far, and we feel that the Government are taking a very serious and grievous responsibility in not only ignoring but going against the advice of the Army Council.

Major-General Sir JOHN DAVIDSON: Frankly—[Interruption.]

The CHAIRMAN: I have called upon the hon. and gallant Member and, having called him, it is not right for any other Members to interrupt.

Sir J. DAVIDSON: Frankly, I would say that what shocks me is the extraordinary levity with which a subject of this character is dealt with. Judging from the laughter, the continuous laughter, which is coming from the other side, I cannot think that 99 per cent. have given the subject any consideration whatever. I am not going to make a speech on this Amendment. I have got up for one purpose and one purpose only. It seems that there is a great deal of confusion on the subject in the minds of hon. Members opposite, and the mind that there is most confusion in at this moment appears to be that of the Secretary of State for War. The right hon. Gentleman sitting below me gets up and courteously asks him for some explanation, and that explanation is not given. He applies to the Attorney-General, and I must say that, with all the responsibility that the Attorney-General has, he is treating this matter with the same levity that the other Members are treating it. Is he going to give the Committee any guidance in this matter? He has practically told the Committee that he knows nothing whatever about it. I know that there are many hon. Members opposite who feel deeply on this matter, just as I feel deeply upon it, and I respect their views and their opinions, but I ask the Attorney-General, on behalf of many of us here who want guidance, to give us honestly his opinion on the problem as stated by the Secretary of State for War.

Commander SOUTHBY: I have no desire to detain the Committee, but I ask hon. Members to allow rim to put a point perfectly fairly and courteously. I think we have got a little bit away from the real issue. I was privileged to hear the speech of the Secretary of State for War,
though I did not hear the speech of my hon. and gallant Friend who moved the Amendment, and it seemed to me, listening to this discussion, that the crux of the argument was this. Most Members of the Committee are in favour of the abolition of the death penalty for individual cases of cowardice, but the Amendment in substance proposes that the death penalty should be retained in a case in which a man, by his cowardice, infects others with cowardice, and thereby starts what may become a disastrous panic, endangering the safety of his own unit, and possibly of the Army. I understood the Secretary of State for War to say, however, that a case of that kind in which a man was inducing cowardice or panic in others would be covered by mutiny. Hon. Members on this side are prepared to vote for an Amendment which we believe will retain the death penalty in the case of a man who by his own cowardice, or even if he is not suffering from cowardice himself, in any way induces cowardice in others, but if that case is covered as the right hon. Gentleman has suggested by mutiny, then I presume that hon. Members on this side would not press the Amendment to a Division. Therefore, I ask the Attorney-General, as the senior Law Officer of the Crown, to give us his opinion as to whether such a case is covered by mutiny or not. If it is, I think there is no doubt that the Committee can proceed to the next Amendment.

The ATTORNEY - GENERAL: Any lawyer who has heard this Debate must realise that what is here involved is a full appreciation of the facts, and it is out of no incivility to the Committee that I have not responded to the request made to me. As the hon. and gallant Member for Fareham (Sir J. Davidson) has pointed out, this is a very serious matter, and it would ill become me on such a very serious matter to make observations on the spur of the moment. I will be quite frank with the Committee and say that I have not in my mind—it may be my own fault—with precision, what the facts are, but I assure the Committee that no discourtesy is intended. If I understand the question of the last speaker, the case which he puts is one where, in front of the enemy, one of His Majesty's soldiers actively engages
in trying to persuade others to show cowardice, or something of that kind.

HON. MEMBERS: No!

Commander SOUTHBY: By example or by action.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: I should have thought, and I think the hon. and gallant Member will agree, that whatever else that might be, it would be an act done on active service which would be calculated to imperil the success of His Majesty's Forces. That being so, the hon. and gallant Member will find that it is expressly provided for by Sub-section (6) of Section 4. It does not matter whether it is mutiny or sedition. It is expressly provided by this Sub-section, which says:
knowingly does when on active service any act calculated to imperil the success of His Majesty's forces or any part thereof.
It is unnecessary to consider whether it is mutiny or not. It is an offence punishable with death.

Commander SOUTHBY: I do not think that that quite answers the point. I had in mind the case of a man who is suffering from cowardice, and does not know what he is doing at the moment. [Interruption.] Hon. Members will, perhaps, allow me to put the point; I am asking for the information of the Committee. A man who by his action, when suffering from cowardice, but not knowingly, causes a panic—

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: If he does not act knowingly, he does not commit any crime, nor does he commit mutiny or sedition, nor does he come under Sub-section (6).

Mr. ERNEST BROWN: This is not a matter for any court, it is a matter for the man in charge on the spot, and he has got to take action. Some of us have seen it done, and these discussions are really quite irrelevant to the military man. If the thing happens when an operation is on, the man in charge of the operation has got to shoot the man down. It is done then, and therefore there is no need for the advice of the Attorney-General, and all the fine law distinctions made in the War Office are irrelevant.

Question put, "That those words be there inserted."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 165; Noes, 288.

Division No. 251.]
AYES.
[10.24 p.m.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Erskine, Lord (Somerset,Weston-s.-M.)
Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)


Albery, Irving James
Everard, W. Lindsay
Power, Sir John Cecil


Allen, Sir J. Sandeman (Liverp'l., W.)
Ferguson, Sir John
Pownall, Sir Assheton


Allen, Lt.-Col. Sir William (Armagh)
Fielden, E. B.
Ramsbotham, H.


Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W.
Ford, Sir P. J.
Rawson. Sir Cooper


Astor, Maj. Hon. John J.(Kent,Dover)
Forestier-Walker, Sir L.
Reid, David D. (County Down)


Atkinson, C.
Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.
Remer, John R.


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley (Bewdley)
Galbraith, J. F. W.
Rentoul, Sir Gervais S.


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Ganzon[...], Sir John
Reynolds, Col. Sir James


Ba[...]n[...]el, Lord
Gibson, C. G. (Pudsey amp; Otley)
Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y)


Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.
Glyn, Major R. G. C.
Roberts, Sir Samuel (Ecclesall)


Beaumont, M. W.
Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)
Rodd, Rt. Hon. Sir James Rennell


Bellairs, Commander Carlyon
Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.
Ross, Major Ronald D.


Bennett, Sir Albert (Nottingham, C.)
Greene, W. P. Crawford
Ruggles-Brise, Lieut.-Colonel E. A.


Berry, Sir George
Grenfell, Edward C. (City of London)
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)


Bevan, S. J. (Holborn)
Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John
Salmon, Major I.


Birchall, Major Sir John Dearman
Gritten, W.
G. Howard Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)


Bird, Ernest Roy
Gunston, Captain D. W.
Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)


Bourne, Captain Robert Croft
Hamilton, Sir George (Ilford)
Sandeman, Sir N. Stewart


Bowater, Col. Sir T. Vansittart
Hanbury, C.
Shepperson, Sir Ernest Whittome


Boyce. H. L.
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Simms, Major-General J.


Bracken, B.
Harbord, A.
Skelton, A. N.


Brass, Captain Sir William
Hartington, Marquess of
Smith, Louis W. (Sheffield, Hallam)


Briscoe, Richard George
Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)
Smith, R. W. (Aberd'n amp; Kinc'dine, C.)


Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'ld., Hexham)
Haslam, Henry C.
Smith-Carington, Neville W.


Brown, Brig.-Gen.H. C.(Berks, Newb'y)
Henderson, Capt. R. R.(Oxf'd,Henley)
Smithers, Waldron


Buckingham, Sir H.
Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel
Arthur P. Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)


Bullock, Captain Malcolm
Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J.
Southby, Commander A. R. J.


Butler, R. A.
Howard-Bury, Colonel C. K.
Spender-Clay, Colonel H.


Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)
Stanley, Lord (Fylde)


Castle Stewart, Earl of
Hurst, Sir Gerald B.
Stanley, Maj. Hon. O. (W'morland)


Cautley, Sir Henry S.
Iveagh, Countess of
Steel-Maitland, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur


Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)
Jones, Sir G. W. H. (Stoke New'gton)
Stewart, W. J. (Belfast, South)


Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton
Kindersley, Major G. M.
Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)


Christie, J. A.
King, Commodore Rt. Hon. Henry D.
Sueter, Rear-Admiral M. F.


Cockerill, Brig.-General Sir George
Lamb, Sir J. Q.
Thomson, Sir F.


Colfox, Major William Philip
Lane Fox, Col. Rt. Hon. George R.
Tinne, J. A.


Colman, N. C. D.
Leighton, Major B. E. P.
Titchfield, Major the Marquess of


Courtauld, Major J. S.
Lewis, Oswald (Colchester)
Todd, Capt. A. J.


Courthope, Colonel Sir G. L.
Little, Dr. E. Graham
Train, J.


Cranbourne, Viscount
Locker-Lampson, Com. O.(Handaw'th)
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement


Crichton-Stuart, Lord C.
Long, Major Eric
Turton, Robert Hugh


Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.
McConnell, Sir Joseph
Wallace, Capt. D. E. (Hornsey)


Crookshank, Capt. H. C.
Macquisten, F. A.
Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. Lambert


Croom-Johnson, R. P.
MacRobert, Rt. Hon. Alexander M.
Warrender, Sir Victor


Culverwell, C. T. (Bristol, West)
Makins, Brigadier-General E.
Wayland, Sir William A.


Da[...]keith, Earl of
Merriman, Sir F. Boyd
Wells, Sydney R.


Da[...]rymp[...]e-White, Lt.-Col. Sir Godfrey
Mond, Hon. Henry
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George


Davidson, Major-General Sir J. H.
Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. Sir B.
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Davies, Dr. Vernon
Morrison, W. S. (Glos., Cirencester)
Withers, Sir John James


Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)
Muirhead, A. J.
Wolmer, Rt. Hon. Viscount


Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.)
Nicholson, O. (Westminster)
Worthington-Evans. Rt. Hon. Sir L.


Dixey, A. C.
Nicholson, Col. Rt. Hn. W. G. (Ptrsf'ld)
Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton


Duckworth, G. A. V.
Oman, Sir Charles William C.



Dugdale, Capt. T. L.
O'Neill, Sir H.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Elliot, Major Walter E.
Peake, Capt. Osbert
Captain Margesson and Sir George




Penny.




NOES.


Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)
Bowen, J. W.
Clarke, J. S.


Alpass, J. H.
Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.
Cluse, W. S.


Ammon, Charles George
Broad, Francis Alfred
Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.


Angell, Norman
Brockway, A. Fenner
Cocks, Frederick Seymour


Arnott, John
Bromfield, William
Collins, Sir Godfrey (Greenock)


Aske, Sir Robert
Bromley, J.
Compton, Joseph


Attlee, Clement Richard
Brooke, W.
Cove, William G.


Ayles, Walter
Brothers, M.
Daggar, George


Baker, John (Wolverhampton, B[...]ston)
Brown, C. W. E. (Notts. Mansfield)
Dallas, George


Baldwin, Oliver (Dudley)
Brown, Ernest (Leith)
Dalton, Hugh


Barnes, Alfred John
Brown, Rt. Hon. J. (South Ayrshire)
Denman, Hon. R. D.


Barr, James
Brown, W. J. (Wolverhampton, West)
Dickson, T.


Batey, Joseph
Buchanan, G.
Dudgeon, Major C. R.


Beckett, John (Camberwell, Peckham)
Burgess, F. G.
Dukes, C.


Bellamy, Albert
Burgin, Dr. E. L.
Duncan, Charles


Benn, Rt. Hon. Wedgwood
Buxton, C. R. (Yorks. W. R. Elland)
Ede, James Chuter


Bennett, Capt. E. N. (Cardiff,Central)
Buxton, Rt. Hon. Noel (Norfolk, N.)
Edge, Sir William


Bennett, William (Battersea, South)
Ca[...]ne, Derwent Hall-
Edmunds, J. E


Benson, G.
Cameron, A. G.
Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)


Bentham, Dr. Ethel
Carte', W. (St. Pancras, S. W.)
Edwards, E. (Morpeth)


Bevan, Aneurin (Ebbw Vale)
Chapman, Sir S.
Egan, W. H.


Birkett, W.
Norman Charleton, H. C.
Elmley, Viscount


Blindell, James
Church, Major A. G.
Foot, Isaac




Forgan, Dr. Robert
Lewis, T. (Southampton)
Sanders, W. S.


Freeman, Peter
Lindley, Fred W.
Sandham, E.


Gardner, B. W. (West Ham, Upton)
Lloyd, C. Ellis
Sawyer, G. F.


George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)
Logan, David Gilbert
Scrymgeour, E.


Gibbins, Joseph
Longbottom, A. W.
Scurr, John


Gibson, H. M. (Lancs. Mossley)
Longden, F.
Sexton, James


Gill, T. H.
Lovat-Fraser, J. A.
Shakespeare, Geoffrey H.


Gillett, George M.
Lowth, Thomas
Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)


Glassey, A. E.
Lunn, William
Shepherd, Arthur Lewis


Gossling, A. G.
Macdonald, Gordon (Ince)
Sherwood, G. H.


Gould, F.
MacDonald, Malcolm (Bassetlaw)
Shield, George William


Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)
McElwee, A.
Shillaker, J. F.


Granville, E.
McEntee, A.
Shinwell, E.


Gray, Milner
Mackinder, W.
Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)


Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A. (Colne)
McKinlay, A.
Simmons, C. J.


Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)
Maclaren, Andrew
Sinclair, Sir A. (Caithness)


Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlleshro' W.)
Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)
Sinkinson, George


Griffiths, T (Monmouth, Pontypool)
MacNeill-Weir, L.
Smith, Alfred (Sunderland)


Groves, Thomas E.
McShane, John James
Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)


Grundy, Thomas W.
Mander, Geoffrey le M.
Smith, Frank (Nuneaton)


Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton)
Marcus, M.
Smith, H. B. Lees- (Keighley)


Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Marley, J.
Smith, Rennie (Penistone)


Hall, Capt. W. P. (Portsmouth, C.)
Marshall, Fred
Smith, Tom (Pontefract)


Hamilton, Mary Agnes (Blackburn)
Mathers, George
Smith, W. R. (Norwich)


Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney amp; Zetland)
Matters, L. W.
Snell, Harry


Hard[...]e, George D.
Melville, Sir James
Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip


Harris, Percy A.
Messer, Fred
Snowden, Thomas (Accrington)


Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon
Middleton, G.
Sorensen, R.


Hastings, Dr. Somerville
Millar, J. D.
Stamford, Thomas W.


Haycock, A. W.
Mills, J. E.
Stephen, Campbell


Hayday, Arthur
Milner, Major J.
Strachey, E. J. St. Loe


Hayes, John Henry
Montague, Frederick
Strauss, G. R.


Henderson, Arthur, junr. (Cardiff, S.)
Morgan, Dr. H. B.
Sullivan, J.


Henderson, W. W. (Middx., Enfield)
Morley, Ralph
Sutton, J. E.


Herriotts, J.
Morris-Jones, Dr. J. H. (Denbigh)
Taylor, R. A. (Lincoln)


Hills, Major Rt. Hon. John Waller
Morrison, Robert C. (Tottenham, N.)
Taylor, W. B. (Norfolk, S. W.)


Hirst. G. H. (York W. R. Wentworth)
Mort, D. L.
Thurtle, Ernest


Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)
Moses, J. J. H.
Tinker, John Joseph


Hoffman, P. C.
Mosley, Lady C. (Stoke-on-Trent)
Toole, Joseph


Hopkin, Daniel
Mosley, Sir Oswald (Smethwick)
Tout, W. J.


Hore-Belisha, Leslie.
Muff, G.
Townend, A. E.


Horrabin, J. F.
Muggeridge, H. T.
Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles


Hudson. James H. (Huddersfield)
Murnin, Hugh
Turner. B.


Hutchison, Maj.-Gen. Sir R.
Naylor, T. E.
Vaughan, D. J.


Isaacs, George
Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)
Viant, S. P.


Jenkins. W. (Glamorgan, Neath)
Noel Baker, P. J.
Walker, J.


John, William (Rhondda, West)
Oldfield, J. R.
Wallace, H. W.


Johnston, Thomas
Oliver, George Harold (Ilkeston)
Wallhead, Richard C.


Jones, F. Llewellyn. (Flint)
Oliver, P. M. (Man., Blackley)
Watkins, F. C.


Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)
Palin, John Henry
Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline).


Jones, Rt. Hon. Leif (Camborne)
Palmer, E. T.
Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)


Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)
Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. Josiah


Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)
Perry, S. F.
Wollock, Wilfred


Jewett, Rt. Hon. F. W.
Peters, Dr. Sidney John
Welsh, James (Paisley)


Jowitt, Rt. Hon. Sir W. A.
Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.
Welsh, James C. (Coatbridge)


Kelly, W. T.
Phillips, Dr. Marion
West, F. R.


Kennedy, Thomas
Picton-Turbervill, Edith
White, H. G


Kenworthy, Lt.-Com. Hon. Joseph M.
Pole, Major D. G.
Whiteley, Wilfrid (Birm., Ladywood)


Kinley, J.
Potts, John S.
Whiteley, William (Blaydon)


Kirkwood, D.
Price, M. P.
Wilkinson, Ellen C.


Knight, Holford
Pybus, Percy John
Williams, David (Swansea, East)


Lambert, Rt. Hon. George (S. Molton)
Qu[...]bell, D. F. K.
Williams Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)


Lang, Gordon
Ramsay, T. B. Wilson
Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)


Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George
Raynes, W. R.
Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)


Lathan, G.
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)
Wilson, J. (Oldham)


Law, Albert (Bolton)
Riley, Ben (Dewsbury)
Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)


Law, A. (Rosendale)
Riley, F. F. (Stockton-on-Tees)
Winterton, G. E. (Leicester,Loughb'gh)


Lawrence, Susan
Roberts, Rt. Hon. F. 0. (W. Bromwich)
Wise, E. F.


Lawrie, Hugh Hartley (Stalybridge)
Romeril, H. G.
Wood, Major McKenzie (Banff)


Lawther, W. (Barnard Castle)
Rosbotham, D. S, T.
Wright. W. (Rutherglen)


Leach, W.
Rowson, Guy
Young, R. S. (Islington, North)


Lee, Frank (Derby, N.E.)
Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter



Lee, Jennie (Lanark, Northern)
Salter, Dr. Alfred
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Lees, J.
Samuel, H. W. (Swansea, West)
Mr. Paling and Mr. T. Henderson.

Sir G. COURTHOPE: I beg to move, in page 4, line 16, to leave out Subsection (2).
I will move this Amendment very briefly in view of the general discussion which has taken place on the last Amendment. The effect of My Amendment is to retain
the death penalty for the three offences which the Government propose to remove from the category of death penalty to that of penal servitude. The first offence is where a soldier leaves his guard, picket, patrol or post without orders from his superior officer; the
second, intentionally occasions false alarms in action, on the march or in the field by discharging firearms; and the third, where a soldier leaves his post while he is acting as sentinel before he is regularly relieved. Those offences are limited to active service, and I think I may claim, in support of my Amendment, the statement made by the Secretary of State for War in opposing the Amendment upon which we have just voted.
The right hon. Gentleman in that statement said that he differentiated between an individual act of cowardice and an act which would seriously affect a man's colleagues. I should like to ask the Committee what could affect a soldier's colleagues more seriously than to reduce the serious nature of the offence of a man who blinds an army, who removes from an army its eyes, its ears, and all those precautions on which it relies against surprise? The offences which it is now proposed to relieve from liability to the capital penalty are those of removing what we nominally call the eyes and the ears of an army. There are a good many of us in this House who have had personal experience of the horrors of the last War, and I would ask anyone who has had experience of a gas cloud to consider whether they would reduce the importance of the sentries whose duty it was to give a warning to the trenches of the approach of gas. The proposal in the Bill which I wish to delete by my Amendment would relieve the gas sentry who deserts his post from the most severe penalty.
I am not one who wishes to minimise the tremendous urge of fear upon the individual soldier. I have been through it myself many a time, and I can frankly say that I very much doubt whether I could have gone through my experience in the Great War without showing cowardice, but for the one fact, which I believe saved a great many of us, that our fear of showing fear was infinitely greater than our fear of anything else on earth. That saved us. But it is not so with everyone. I have had intimate knowledge at critical moments of the innermost souls of officers and men who have been serving with me and under me, and I know well, and many in this House must know it too from their own personal
experience, that there is a type of mind that is afraid—and we are all afraid on these occasions; I do not believe in the man who does not feel fear. But there is a type of mind whose fear is calculated. I have known many men when zero hour was coming, and one had to go over the top, and it looked almost impossible for anyone to go alive through the barrage of bursting shells, and so on, in front of us; and I have heard men talking, and they have said to me, "After all, we have got to be shot anyway, and we may as well be shot decently out there." I do not say that that, argument has any greater bearing on the Amendment which I am now moving than it would have had on the Amendment which has just been rejected by the Committee. It is, in fact, an argument in favour of the contention of the military members of the Army Council which the Government have turned down. The fact remains that there is this tremendous urge of fear upon the individual, whether commissioned officer or man, who neglects his duty in order to seek safty for himself. At such times all one's idea of values is broken up and changed.
I am certain, from my own experience, that, but for the fact that I was more afraid of showing fear than of anything else, I should have thought a lifetime of penal servitude a very blessed thing compared with the dangers one had to fact in sticking to one's job. There is no job the soldier has to do which tries his nerve more severely than the listening-post, the man isolated, or, at most, with two or three comrades, hour after hour out in No Man's Land, listening, cooking, almost feeling for an enemy that may be upon him, an enemy in the shape of man, an enemy in the shape of gas, an enemy in the shape of all sorts of things which may not exist in fact but only in his over-strung imagination, and it is the greatest mistake in the world to make it easy for those men, who are the eyes and ears upon which the safety of the men behind them depends, to leave their post. I feel that, if there is one military offence for which the extreme penalty should be maintained as a deterrent, it is the offence of leaving one's post when one is a sentry or listening-post, or anything of that kind on which the lives of the men behind depend. For that reason, without troubing the Committee with any argument on the third point in the Amendment, the
deliberate creation of false alarms, because I do not think it has very much relation to modern war, I beg to move the Amendment.
Question, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause," put, and negatived.

Mr. SHINWELL: rose—

Sir BASIL PETO: (seated and covered)
On a point of Order.

The CHAIRMAN: The hon. Gentleman has risen on a point of Order.

Mr. SHINWELL: My point of Order, with great respect, is that the assumption was that the Question was being put in precisely the same form as the previous Question had been put. [Interruption.] If I may have your permission to put my point, I shall proceed. I say that that was a perfectly well-founded assumption, and it was quite obvious that hon. and right hon. Gentlemen on the other side were as much the victims of that assumption as hon. Members on this side. I ask under those circumstances that the Division shall still obtain.

Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: May I ask you, Mr. Young, whether you had not collected the voices and declared the Amendment carried?

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: First of all, a Division was challenged. [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"] It was challenged on these benches. [Interruption.] May I put my point of Order to the Chairman? When you collected the voices certain hon. Members shouted "Aye" and certain hon. Members shouted "No." I am within the recollection of the Committee. That is the first point. The second point is, that in putting the Question it is usual, in fact I think it is the rule, that you say, "The Noes have it." In this case, you did not do so.

The CHAIRMAN: I put the Question in the proper way. I asked for the "Ayes," and there were no "Ayes" at all. Then I asked for the "Noes" and hon. Members on this side said "No." I had to give it to the "Noes."

Mr. J. WILSON: On a point of Order. I definitely said "Aye."

Mr. BECKETT: On that point of Order, may I ask whether a similar incident did not occur during the Report stage of the Widows', Orphans' and Old Age Contributory Pensions Bill in the last Parliament when the late Speaker, having failed to hear certain voices, put the Question again.

The CHAIRMAN: I did not fail to hear the voices. I asked for the "Ayes," and there were no "Ayes" called. [HON. MEMBERS: "Yes!"] Then I asked for the "Noes," and I was so surprised at the "Noes" that at the moment I could not give my decision. The "Noes" came from this side. It was not my fault.

Mr. J. WILSON: rose—

The CHAIRMAN: Having given my decision we cannot go back.
Miss WILKINSON: May I ask a question? [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"]

The CHAIRMAN: Is it a point of Order?

Miss WILKINSON: I want to ask, on a point of Order, if the intention is so obviously different, does it not reduce the whole of our proceedings to a farce?

The CHAIRMAN: If hon. Members call out "No" when they do not mean it, they must be held to it.

Mr. BECKETT: rose—

HON. MEMBERS: Order! and Name!

Mr. BECKETT: On a point of Order—

The CHAIRMAN: There is no point of Order arising on this question now.

Mr. BECKETT: I am asking you on another point of Order—

The CHAIRMAN: There can be no point of Order on the decision which has been arrived at. It must be quite a different point arising on the decision of the Committee, but it cannot be on this. If there is any other point of Order apart from this, I will listen to it.

Mr. THURTLE: I beg to move, in page 4, line 31, at the end, to add the words:
(3) In Sub-section (1) of Section twelve, for the word 'death' there shall be substituted the words penal servitude.'
This Amendment is designed to abolish the death penalty for the offence of desertion. I would like at the outset to congratulate the Government on their decision to allow this matter to be put to a free vote of the Committee. There is no more appropriate point to be put to the free and unfettered judgment of the Committee than a question of life and death like this. It is not a matter of party opinion. It is a matter which cuts across all the ordinary divisions and differences of parties, and therefore Parliament is doing credit to itself by saying that a free vote shall be given upon the issue.
I would like to express my sympathy with the position of the Minister of War in this matter. He is the head of the War Department, and it is quite natural that he should wish to pay due respect to the advice of his professional advisers on this point. I understand that the advice of his professional advisers is to the effect that this penalty must be maintained. The Minister of War, like all other Ministers, has a final responsibility to this House, and, if there is a conflict of opinion as between this House and the Army Council, then it is the opinion of this House which must prevail. I think it was Sir William Harcourt who said that the value of political heads of Departments was to tell the officials what the public would not stand. I hope the House of Commons to-night is going to ask the Minister of War to tell the Army Council, politely but firmly, that the public will no longer stand the imposition of the death penalty for the offence of desertion. If the Minister does that, he will not be in the least disloyal to his Army Council, but he will be having regard to his major loyalty, which is that to the House of Commons.
What I have to argue in this Amendment is whether or not the offence of desertion warrants the death penalty. I think my course has been made very much easier by the practical unanimity with which this House has received the decision to abolish the penalty of death for cowardice. I am going to demonstrate that it is impossible for any real line of demarcation to be drawn between the offence of cowardice and the offence of desertion. Our case is, that these two
offences are manifestations in different form of the same failure of nerve power or will power. I think I can show to the House that such is the similarity between these offences that if you take away the penalty of death for cowardice it will still be Possible for the War Authorities, if the penalty for desertion remains, to get as many people executed as they could do if the two penalties were in existence. I will suppose that the penalty of death for cowardice in the last War had not been in existence. 18 men were executed under that head. I guarantee to say that without the penalty of death for cowardice, had the military authorities so desired they could have got the bulk of those men executed on the charge of desertion.
Let me give one or two illustrations to show what I mean. You have the case of the man who, when an attack is taking place, hides behind his dugout and does not go over with the rest. Clearly, that could be established as a case of cowardice, but if the penalty of death for cowardice does not exist, arid the authorities want to catch that man, they can get him on the ground of desertion, because he has left his battalion. Take another illustration. An attack is actually proceeding, the men go over the parapet, they are going along to the line in the barrage, and a man sinks down into a convenient shell hole or takes some other cover which may he available for him. The battalion and the rest of the line go on, hut he remains behind. That man is guilty, in the Army sense of the word, of cowardice, but if there was no penalty of death for cowardice it would still be possible for the military authorities to get that man on the charge of desertion.
11.0 p.m.
Let me give two illustrations of actual charges, taken from the army Records. The accused, through motives of cowardice, left the trenches during a gas attack. A charge was framed, and the man was convicted and sentenced to be shot on the ground of cowardice. If the death penalty had not been available for cowardice, it would have been equally possible for the Army authorities to get that man executed on the ground of desertion. Here is another illustration from the Records. After going over the parapet with his company an attack, the man absented himself while the attack was in progress, and remained absent
until the following day. There is an illustration where either charge could be formulated, either the charge of cowardice or the charge of desertion. If the one weapon is not available, the other may be used. In our view it is not possible to differentiate between these two offences. I would like the House to be seized of the importance of this issue of desertion, because if we allow the death penalty for desertion to remain, to all intents and purposes we are not touching the death penalty at all. What are the figures? There were 287 men executed in the last War. Two of them for striking officers, two for sleeping at posts; 18 for cowardice and 264 for desertion. The death penalty has been taken away in the case of the offence of striking an officer, sleeping at his post, and for cowardice. There are a number of offences for which the death penalty has been abolished. The list may seem very impressive. It may seem that there has been great relaxation as far as the death penalty is concerned, but actually if you allow the death penalty for desertion to remain you allow a penalty to remain which was responsible for no less than 92 per cent. of the executions in the last War.
Let us consider this question of desertion. What are the normal circumstances in which it takes place? I have in my possession the details of a considerable number of cases and I also had the opportunity of going to the War Office library and studying carefully the general routine orders of the War. What is the result of the information I obtained in this way? I found that the great bulk of these cases of desertion were of men when going into the line with their battalion. The terms used are:
Absented himself when warned for dangerous duty.
Absented himself after having been warned to proceed to the trenches the same day, and remained absent until apprehended it, the village behind the lines, six hours later.
What inferences are we entitled to draw from the facts that the great majority of these desertions took place when the men were proceeding into the line? Is it not a fair inference to say that they were actuated by fear and cowardice, just as much as the men who actually failed in the field itself, and how can you logically
differentiate between the two offences? Men who were in the trenches know that the imaginative man experienced more stress and more temptation when he was out of the line waiting to return to the trenches than while actually in the line. In the line itself there was a sense of fatalism, inevitability, there was no escape, but when a man got away to reserve and rest his mind was apt to dwell upon the things he had gone through. He thought he was living an unnatural life. He was away from home. He could remember the misery and the terrors he had gone through, and he could think of the possibility of having to go back into the inferno.
Is it any wonder that in those circumstances some of the weaklings, whose nerves were not as strong as those of the average man, failed? We know very well what happens in our ordinary peace-time civilian life. We get nervous failures in peace-time. Men and women under some domestic strain, or worry, or ill-health, or financial trouble, and all sorts of things like that, are constantly having nervous breakdowns. They cannot help it. If that sort of thing can happen in ordinary civilian life, how much more likely is it to happen, so far as the weaklings are concerned—and it is they whom we are thinking about in this Debate—under the conditions which obtain on active service and on the battlefield? It is said that this death penalty is a means of helping the weakling, of strengthening him, so that he can withstand the temptation. There is not a bit of truth in that. The figures prove the very contrary. You have the penalty of death for desertion, but in spite of it there were over 7,000 men—of whom, it is true, only 264 were shot—who risked that penalty and deserted because they could not stand the strain any longer. No, if a man has reached the breaking point of desertion, either because of terror or of misery, there is no nice calculation as to the consequences which are going to ensue to him from his attempt to desert, as the hon. and gallant Member opposite said in his opening speech.
I heard an hon. Member trying to make a distinction between the volunteer and the conscript. All such distinctions are idle. I agree that it is a very dreadful thing that you should get a volunteer, as you got him in the last War, impelled by
feelings of patriotism to give up a good job, go into the Army, and go and fight over the other side, and that when he tries and fails, you should then have him shot in cold blood by his fellow-countrymen. That is a very dreadful thing, but I cannot see any difference between that and the case of the conscript. Take a man who does not want to fight, who will not fight unless he is forced. You conscript him into the Army, and you take him on to the battlefield, and I say that if he fails in those circumstances in trying to do the work that you have forced upon him, you have no right at all to have him shot in cold blood by his fellow-countrymen.
The attitude of the Army Council towards this question is this. It says: "This penalty of death is a very dreadful sanction, it is horrible in many cases in its application, but dreadful and horrible as it is, it is a sanction which is essential to the discipline of the British Army." What is our reply to that contention? It has been given very largely by my hon. Friend the Member for North Tottenham (Mr. R. Morrison). There is a devastating historical case against the Army Council on this question of military necessity for the death penalty. As my hon. Friend said, and as the Debates in this House will show, the Army Council in the days gone by defended the practice of flogging, of the cat-o'-nine-tails, and 500 strokes, on the ground that the discipline of the British Army would go to pieces if bite practice were abolished. They defended on the same grounds, as my hon. Friend said, the policy of Field Punishment No. 1, known as crucifixion. They defended the death penalty for the act of striking an officer in spite of the fact, mark you, that there were over 6,000 cases of that sort which occurred in the last War and only two cases in which it was applied. For a long time, the Army Council, in spite of that striking fact, defended the death penalty for striking an officer. Then there is the question of sleeping at the post. You see how inconsistent the Army Council have been. We had a committee of inquiry inaugurated by the Labour Government of 1924. That committee sat and took evidence on these various questions and the Army Council, in front of that committee, insisted that this sanction of
the penalty of death for sleeping at the post was an essential feature of the discipline of the British Army, and they did not yield on that point. Then, after the committee had reported—it was only two years later—after having said during the committee of inquiry they could not yield up that sanction, they gave way and the penalty for sleeping at the post was abandoned.
There emerges the clear fact that on every possible occasion the Army Council has used this plea of military necessity and has shifted its ground the most inconsistent fashion. I should like the House to realise this, if it pays any weight to the Army Council on this point, that if this plea of military necessity had been accepted as valid by the British House of Commons in the past, we should not have had a single amelioration of military law from the time of the Peninsula War. Therefore, I hope, so far as this question of military necessity is concerned, we will not hear much more about it to-night.
Let me put another point before the Committee, and I think I can get support for this from regimental officers. The Army Council's view is essentially the Staff College view. It is the view of what we used to call the Brass Hat par excellence. I think I am right in saying that the Staff College point of view differs very materially from the regimental officers' point of view in regard to this necessity of the death penalty. You will find a very large number of regimental officers who know the actual conditions of the battlefield and who, because of their close association with the men, know the psychology of the men better than the Staff Officers can know it, holding the view that the penalty of death is by no means essential to military discipline.
Having said that much, I put this further point to the Committee on the question of military necessity. I know it is a thing which the Army Council does not like to have brought up, and it gives me no pleasure to bring it up except that I want to reinforce my case. I allude to the fact that the death penalty was never applied to the Australian troops during the War. The Australian Government, in spite of great pressure
brought to bear on it, would never accede to this penalty being inflicted on the Australian troops.

Sir J. DAVIDSON: I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Member, but I think this is a very dangerous argument which he is introducing, and I suggest that he should drop it. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why'?"] I will tell hon. Members why. If the hon. Member looks into the statistics of this particular subject which he is discussing, he will see that they defeat every single argument which he is putting forward.

Mr. THURTLE: I cannot accept the statement of the hon. and gallant Gentleman as an accurate statement of the facts. At any rate, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, we are entitled to take this broad fact. There were two Army Corps of Australians fighting in the last War, and not a single one of those Australians was executed. We executed Englishmen, Welshmen, Scotsmen, Canadians, even New Zealanders, but not a single Australian was executed. According to the argument of the Army Council, in order that discipline should be effectively maintained, it is necessary to have this sanction of the death penalty. What happened in the case of the Australians? Does anyone suggest that the Australians, although they had not the death penalty hanging over their heads to keep them fighting, did not behave with just as much gallantry, just as much courage, as any of the other troops? If that is so, if it was unnecessary to apply this penalty in the case of the Australian troops, why should it be necessary to apply it in the case of the other British troops? The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Guinness) referred to a statement which was made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Bow and Bromley (Mr. Lansbury) and called that statement a libel on the courage and patriotism of the British troops. I say, that if it is demonstrated that the Australian troops could fight gallantly and courageously, as they did, without the death penalty, then it is a libel on the courage of other British troops to say that they will not fight without the death penalty.

Mr. GUINNESS: I am sure that the hon. Member does not wish to mis-
represent me; but he is quoting me in the contrary sense to that in which I used the words. I gave the statement of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bow and Bromley (Mr. Lansbury)—

Mr. LANSBURY: And the right hon. Gentleman has not the courtesy to give me notice.

Mr. GUINNESS: It was not necessary to give notice.

Mr. LANSBURY: Of course it was, if the right hon. Gentleman was going to make an attack on me.

Mr. GUINNESS: I did not make any attack on the right hon. Gentleman. I quoted the right hon. Gentleman's words, and I said that he represented the views of his party. I am now told that I argued in the contrary sense. I said that the right hon. Gentleman had stated that the only thing which held the Army together was the fear of death, and I said that was a libel on the British Army. The hon. Member for Shoreditch (Mr. Thurtle) is now supporting my view of the case, on the ground that the Australians did not need the death penalty, and that that shows the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bow and Bromley to have been wrong.

Mr. THURTLE: May I point out that the Army Council itself, by its insistence on the death penalty as a necessity of discipline in the British Army is in effect doing the very thing which the right hon. Gentleman suggests that my right hon. Friend the Member for Bow and Bromley ought not to do. It is, in effect, saying that without the death penalty, the British Army is not going to fight properly. If the charge is valid against my right hon. Friend the Member for Bow and Bromley, it is equally valid against the Army Council.
I will leave that argument of military necessity there. I think that I have shown that it is not a valid argument. I would invite the Committee on this matter to look a little deeper into the issue than the question of military necessity. That may be a very important thing but we have not yet elevated it to the position of a supreme law. Questions of elementary human justice ought to take precedence even of military necessity. There are some limits beyond
which we ought not to go, even for the sake of military necessity; and I suggest that one of these limits is to have a man shot in cold blood by his fellow-countryman, because his nerves have failed to stand the almost indescribable strain of modern warfare. Some Members know what that strain was. Others may not know it, but let me recall this fact to their minds.
In the British Army, according to the records of the last War, there were nearly 4,000 men who, in order to escape from the inferno of the War, got to the point of being prepared to mutilate themselves. Men shot themselves in the foot; they shot themselves in the hand; and they mutilated themselves in other ways in order to escape from that hell. Members must realise that if men got to that point, they must have been subjected to a very dreadful strain. I would like to put this to Members. If there are Members to-night who are going to ask for the judgment of death on men who desert, I would like them, if they have not had the experience, to be subjected to the kind of thing which men had to go through in the last War, for the period of two or three months only. If they were to go through that experience, it would he a remarkable thing if there were not one or two failures among them. If there were not, I know that as a result of that experience, they would judge the men who had failed with a much deeper sympathy and understanding.
I hope that the Committee will treat this matter as a purely non-party matter, as a matter of human justice and human fair play. This law which we are considering to-night, as Members have pointed out on other occasions, is a survival from a ruder and a more barbarous time. To-day it has not the sanction of public opinion behind it, and it is a bad law for that reason. Laws ought to reflect the public conscience. So far from reflecting the public conscience, this law violates the public conscience, and for the reasons I have given, and for reasons of humanity and elementary justice, I ask the Committee to vote for this Amendment.

Mr. OLIVER BALDWIN: I rise to support the Amendment of my hon. Friend. When the Secretary of State for War
wiped out the death penalty for cowardice but retained it for desertion. I agree with my hon. Friend that he left a loophole through which any staff captain would be able to work with great ease. One can only speak from experience, and in mentioning cases to hon. Members who have had the same experience as I have, I think I can show how easy it would have been to shoot people for deserting if you did not wish to take them on the more serious charge, perhaps, of cowardice. I remember as clearly as though it were yesterday an experience in the first fortnight after my arrival in France. It was just behind the Arras-Doulens road. I was awakened in the early hours of the morning by a firing squad who were shooting one of my own division for desertion. It was not a firing squad from his own regiment, because, as hon. Members know, it was not considered good for the morale of the troops that men should have to shoot one of their own number. I inquired the reason for the shooting, and I was told the full facts of the. case.
I remember being very much impressed one dark night when it was raining by a man whom I noticed standing in his column of fours ready to march up to the line. Others were talking quite calmly to each other while waiting to move forward, but he was standing perfectly dead silent. He was swaying slowly backwards, as corn sways in a field. The sergeant said "Shall I take hold of that man?" I said "What do you mean?" He answered "He will never go up the line; he is a coward." I was young and inexperienced and I said "Do what you can." I saw that man frog-marched right up into the heart of the front line, and when he got there he was as brave as anybody else and was there for the whole of the four days until we came out of the line. If that man had not been treated in a humane and sensible fashion, although it was a little rough at the time, and he had dropped out when the battalion had moved forward he could have been executed for cowardice and desertion.
There were cases of men who went over the top and drooped into a shellhole—some of them made a practice of it: went into a shell-hole in the first 10 yards, because nobody paid much attention to it at the time. These men would be liable if you retain this Clause. The only reason for their behaviour was that
they had had so much of the War that they could not stand it any longer. There is a particular case which I remember so well of a sergeant-major who, towards the end of 1918 was incapable of advancing a single yard in an action. According to the law as it stands, the most gallant of all soldiers would be liable to be court-martialled and shot for desertion. It is because I am thinking of individuals, so many of whom I know—because I am thinking of the position of those men and what would have happened to them had the law really been carried out to the full—that I support the Amendment which has been moved by my hon. Friend.

Sir HUGH O'NEILL: I have risen to address the Committee on this subject because during the last year of the war I happened to be in charge of all the court-martial work in one of the main war theatres of the Near East, and I suppose that I have seen as many courts-martial as any hon. Member in any part of the House. The hon. Member who introduced this Amendment has spoken with great moderation and with a great deal of knowledge of his subject; in fact, I think that the House appreciates very greatly the fact that we are conducting this debate in a more serious atmosphere than that which characterised the previous Debate on this question. The hon. Member for Shoreditch (Mr. Thurtle) based his argument upon the fact that there was a difference between cowardice and desertion, and he said that if you do away with cowardice there is no logical reason why you should not do away with the penalty for the offence of desertion. I say quite frankly that I believe there is a certain amount of force in the argument. I think it is possible that some of the cases which were dealt with as cowardice might have been dealt with as cases of desertion. There is, however, an essential difference between the two crimes. In nearly every case of desertion a man has been ordered for duty in the line in a particularly dangerous service; he has failed to respond and has disappeared somewhere behind the lines. That is a different offence from cowardice. The essential point about the offence is that it probably takes place not in the heat, turmoil, and horror of the moment of battle, but probably somewhere behind the lines where the man at the moment of
desertion is under peace conditions and safety, and he deserts to avoid the danger which he knows lies before him if he carries out the dangerous duty which he has been ordered to do. That is desertion, but it is not necessarily cowardice, and therefore there is an essential difference between the two offences.
I concede to the hon. Member that desertion is the great governing factor of these military offences. There are two classes of desertion. One case is where a man leaves the Army never intending to return and that is known as "long desertion." The other is "active service" desertion and that is the kind which I have referred to in connection with this particular offence. If you do away with the death penalty for desertion, you certainly are doing away with the death penalty for what is by far the most common, the most important, and the most vital of all the great active service military offences. That is why I think that, although possibly we may abolish the death penalty for cowardice, and I would even go so far as to say, possibly, in the case of leaving a post, if you abolish the death penalty for desertion you are striking a far more serious blow at the foundations of discipline than by abolishing it for any other active service offence.
There is one other point. If death is not to be the eventual penalty for these very serious crimes in time of battle, what is to be the penalty? The hon. Member, I suppose, would say penal servitude for life. I am not now talking about the poor fellow who is overcome by some terrible physical disability, and is a coward in spite of himself, but when you are dealing with a man who deliberately wants to get out of it, what that man wishes more than anything else is to get out of it, and what gets him out of it more effectively than anything else is a long term of penal servitude. There is no doubt about that. Punishment by penal servitude for life on active service is not an effective punishment. We all realise that, in discussing these matters, we are up against what I may call the elemental facts of life and of Nature, and it is no use dealing with them on grounds of pure sentiment. War is a terrible thing. We all hope that we are not going to have war again. But, so long as we have war, we have to treat war as a serious thing, and we have to see that our
Army is equipped, by its discipline and by its military law, to face that war with success.

Lieut. - Colonel SPENDER - CLAY: Neither the Proposer nor the Seconder of this Amendment mentioned the great risk in which men involve their comrades by acts of desertion. Not only may such acts endanger the whole operations, but they certainly put an additional burden on these men's comrades, and may cause the death of many of them. Both hon. Members have spoken from considerable experience, but I think that one ought to consider also the lives of comrades who may be placed in danger.
There is one other aspect that I should like to mention. If you do away with the death penalty, is there not a great risk that you may cause units to take the law into their own hands? I do not wish to deal with some of our Dominion troops. It is a very unfortunate thing that mention was made of them. [An HON. MEMBER: "Why?"] Some of us know something about them. There is that danger, that if you take away the death penalty there is the possibility that units will take the law into their own hands and do their own executions, and that is a far worse thing. When the circumstances of the case are measured, and the situation under which the act takes place is taken into consideration, there is a far better chance of justice being done than the haphazard shooting that may take place. It is not a popular thing to say, but I feel I must say it. I have had a fairly long Parliamentary life, and I have watched the House moved on occasions like this by sentiment; and we are naturally moved by sentiment on such a grave matter as this. I have seen the House carried away by sentiment, and when it is carried away by sentiment it very often does unwise things. When you are risking the lives of thousands because you are afraid to inflict the death penalty on those who have caused the danger to these lives, it is most necesary that the capital punishment should be retained in these cases.

Mr. SHAW: Although the House will have a perfectly free vote, and everyone of us will go into the Lobby according to his choice without party pressure, it would be scarcely courteous to the House
if I did not express my personal opinion. I have already told the Committee what the opinion of the military advisers of the War Office is, but I am struck by the fact that the Mover and Seconder of the Amendment are men who were actually in the trenches, and I cannot hide from myself the fact that they are probably as keenly alive to the dangers to the private soldier as are others. This is not a question whether death ought to be inflicted for certain offences in the Army or not. That has been allowed to go by default, because no one even advises the withdrawal of the death penalty in cases of treachery, sedition and mutiny. The question I have to face as an individual is, is desertion a case that is so bad as to be more dangerous if allowed to go unchecked by the death penalty than other offences for which penalty is already inflicted.
I can imagine cases of desertion which are just as dangerous as questions of mutiny or treachery. A man in cold blood leaving a key position, and possibly causing loss of life to scores of his comrades, is just as grave an offence as mutiny or treachery can be. I frankly admit that I could not stand at this Box and defend the Clause if it were used for the purpose that has been described by the Mover. It would be absolutely impossible. The idea of shooting a man because his nerve had gone, because he was unable to stand the strain, because he left a post owing to the condition of his nervous system, would be repugnant to me. I agree that if the Clause for desertion remains in the Bill it ought to be so determined and hedged round that it can apply only to cases of deliberate volition where men in cold blood have deserted in a way that has placed the lives of their comrades in danger. I have to face the question of which Lobby I shall go into. I face the question unhesitatingly. On the whole believing that in some cases these offences of desertion are just as bad as those for which the penalty is retained, and while admitting the necessity for a strict delineation of the offences and that there can be no justification for shooting a man who has deserted through nerve failure, while admitting all that, I shall find myself bound to go into the Lobby against the absolute withdrawal of this provision.

Mr. E. BROWN: I am sorry to have to disagree with the right hon. Gentleman. Before he rose I said to my hon. Friends here that I wished I could be as optimistic as my hon. Friend the Member for Shoreditch (Mr. Thurtle) that by the abolition of this particular offence from capital punishment he would abolish the 248 possibilities of execution. It is obvious to me that if you do what the hon. Member wants you to do, those responsible for drawing up the regulations enforcing discipline will be able to get every case to which the right hon. Gentleman has referred under mutiny or sedition. It is perfectly simple. I will go further than that. [An HON. MEMBER: "Nonsense!"] The hon. Member says "nonsense"; that is no argument. I cannot speak from the experience of a great militarist, but, from my point of view, what the right hon. Gentleman said just now appeared to be nonsense. I did not say so, because I accepted his explanation. But if he had had my experience of detailing the escort of a private soldier under penal servitude to go up the line he would know the argument or the possibilities from the point of view of the men in the line. My experience of the King's Regulations in the ranks of 1914 was that it was only by breaking regulations that you got to know them. After all, these phrases were drawn up in order to deal with a kind of warfare which is not our kind of warfare now.
The whole difficulty is that the Army authorities have never troubled to recast the definitions of mutiny and of treachery in order to make them applicable to the definite, actual service facts of modern warfare. I am convinced that the fears of the right hon. Gentleman and of the military advisers are unfounded. I believe that any man who means treachery and desertion could be secured under any regulations framed to deal with mutiny, disobedience of orders, and treachery. Therefore, I beg the Committee to consider what happened last time. We have been told about men falling out on the way to the line. If there is to be any shooting, my answer will be: "Shoot the Commanding Officer responsible for the discipline of the battalion." They did not do it in my lot. My answer to that is that if a man is allowed to slip away like that while
going up to the line, the man responsible for the discipline of the battalion is the man who should bear the penalty, and not the man who gets away. That is also the answer to those who talk about the man's comrades. The fact is that the one thing his comrades will not do, if he does slip away, is to give him away. If they do not give him away, the feeling they will have will not be one of contempt for the man, but for those responsible for the discipline which allows him to do it. I do not believe this provision is necessary. The form of words in the present Army Act is archaic, and I think the Committee might agree to the amendment. If, alas, there should be another war, it will make no difference whatever to the military value of our troops whether these words are in or out.

Mr. GUINNESS: It is surprising to hear a skilful dialectician like the hon. Member for Leith (Mr. E. Brown) using such an argument as that to which we have just listened. He suggests that the Commanding Officer is to be responsible if his men desert, and he proposes to take away the one sanction which, in military opinion, is necessary to enable discipline to be maintained.

Mr. BROWN: I dispute entirely the right hon. Gentleman's view of military opinion. His view is the opinion of particular people whose views he always accepts. I say that there are 6,000,000 or 7,000,000 people in this country who have a right to military opinions after their experience in the War.

Mr. GUINNESS: I do not base my argument on an appeal to authority. I base it on the absurdity of the hon. Member's suggestion that you should take away this necessary sanction.

Mr. BROWN: I do not say it is necessary.

Mr. GUINNESS: The sole object of the hon. Member's argument is to take away this sanction, and, when you have done so, it is absurd to pretend that a Commanding Officer could be responsible for the maintenance of discipline. The Secretary of State has, I am sure, convinced the Committee of the extreme gravity, from the point of view of discipline of this question which we are called upon to decide. I should like to thank him for the courage he has shown on
what is a very difficult, very unpleasant, and unpopular question, in giving the definite lead which he has given. He has admitted that this is really the keystone of our code of military law, and he has also shown that there is no real foundation for the fears which have been expressed as to an improper use being made of this provision. It is quite possible to put in a limitation so that the men of weak nerves, about whom we hear so much in these Debates, will not be unfairly treated and brought under this provision against desertion; moreover, they will escape by the abolition of capital punishment for cowardice.
The Amendment which we are considering is tantamount to the final abolition of capital punishment. It seems to me to be based on false sentiment. It is not, as most of us know from our experience, a question of the man with broken nerves. The men who were shot were men who had deliberately shirked the burdens accepted by their comrades. They were guilty of prejudicing the success, not only of their comrades, but of the national effort. I must protest against the attempt made by the Mover of the Amendment to traduce the humanity of the military members of the Army Council and those responsible for sanctioning these sentences. He talked about the Army Council being able to get as many men executed as before. Not a word of recognition of the efforts of the officers to secure for every man the fairest possible treatment, and the benefit of the doubt. Not a word of recognition of the fact that of the death sentences passed by the unanimous votes of courts-martial—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"]—Yes, it had to be a unanimous vote of the court-martial—nine out of every ten were commuted. The whole of this case is largely based on a false analogy with our peace time system.
The Committee ought to bear in mind the advice of the Darling Committee which went into this matter just after the War. They said:
The reasons for punishing crime on conviction in the Civil Courts are the amendment of offenders, and the deterrent effect of punishment… For the punishing of military offences there is the further reason that unless discipline in Armies be preserved such forces are but a mob—dangerous to all but the enemies of their country. Therefore, the considerations sufficient for Civil Gov-
ernment are not enough for the ruling of the armed forces of the Crown.
If we abolish this sanction is will be a very serious blow at the maintenance of discipline. It is not a question of considering the weak, but of taking away a death penalty and thereby creating the inducement to desertion. We know that imprisonment for the period of the War was no deterrent; it was dropped towards the end of the War and the men were sent back to their units. That method was only possible because when the men went back to their units there was every prospect that if they deserted again they would pay the extreme penalty. The whole of the system of probation depended upon the ultimate penalty being probably in involved in a second offence. If the House abolish the death penalty for that very infectious and tempting offence of desertion, they will be encouraging shirking and prejudicing efficiency and discipline of the Army in a case where the Safety of the State ought to be the supreme law.

12. m.

Mr. O. LEWIS: I listened very carefully to the Speech of the Member of Shoreditch (Mr. Thurtle). He based a considerable part of his argument 12. m. on the contention that the death penalty is of no value as a deterrent, to desertion, and impressed upon the Committee the fact that the temptation to desert is not strongest when a man is taking part, or about to take part, in an attack, but when he is at rest or in reserve. He told the Committee that at such a time a man thought of his home and the hell he had just been through. If a man is capable of reflecting upon his home and the horrors he has been through, he is also capable of reflecting upon the consequences of his action and the penalty which might follow any particular action. By the argument of the hon. Member for Shoreditch it is clear that desertion is a case in which a man often has an opportunity of considering the penalty which will follow. I appeal to the common sense of the Committee in such a case. If a man says to himself: "If I desert I shall be kept in penal servitude, but when the war is over my sentence will probably be cut short and I shall be let out." On the other hand he says: "I shall be shot." Is there any hon. Member who is not pre-
pared to say that the second penalty is not more likely to act as a deterrent than the first? Surely that demolishes entirely the theory that the death penalty cannot be a deterrent in cases of desertion.

Mr. MILLS: May I ask the hon. Member a question?

Mr. LEWIS: The hon. Member for Shoreditch says that the death penalty is a survival of a rude and more barbaric age. Yes, and so is war. And I would remind the Committee that we are assuming war. It is no argument to say: "Let us do away with war," or "We shall not have another war" We are discussing a state of war, and therefore when the hon. Member says that the death penalty is a survival of a more barbaric age it a fair reply to say, And so is war. This proposition must be considered as though at this moment we were, in a state of war.

Mr. BECKETT: I shall only detain the Committee for a very few minutes. Other speakers in this Debate have referred to personal experiences in connection with this subject, but I think my experience has been rather different from those which have been described up to now, and I have been waiting all the evening for an opportunity of putting my side of the case. I think, possibly, I am the only Member who has taken part in this discussion from the point of view of a private soldier who has been lined up when a firing squad was being selected and I wish to challenge strongly the view of the Secretary of State for War that, if we pass the Amendment, men who desert in cold blood will escape the consequences, because of it. I submit that that is an entirely unreal view of what happens in war-time and it would be a disaster if that opinion expressed from our own Front Bench were to lead Members of the Labour party to vote against the Amendment. Hon. members in all parts of the Committee who have had any experience of war know that desertions of that kind could never be "got away with" in the middle of an action. In one of the most popular

Division No. 252.]
AYES.
[12.10 a.m.


Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)
Ayles, Walter
Bennett, Capt. E. N. (Cardiff,Central)


Alpass, J. H.
Barnes, Alfred John
Bennett, William (Battersea, South)


Angell, Norman
Batey, Joseph
Benson, G.


Arnott, John
Beckett, John (Camberwell, Peckham)
Bentham, Dr. Ethel


Aske, Sir Robert
Bellamy, Albert
Bevan, Aneurin (Ebbw Vale)

plays now running in London there is an excellent example of what I mean. In "Journey's End" a young officer proposes to get away from his service and his superior officer at once pulls out a, revolver and threatens to shoot him if he does not "carry on"; and men are more likely to be punished in that way than by courts-martial. But it shows an unreal view of the situation to try to put on this Committee the responsibility for continuing judicial murder. As to an event of the kind which the Secretary of State fears and which the Army Council may have Old him is possible, I assure hon. Members of the Committee that such a fear is not justified and ought to influence anybody in voting on this Amendment.

Mr. SCRYMGEOUR: There is one point which has not been made so far. [HON. MEMBERS: "Divide!"]. I ask hon. Members to have patience—some of us only speak for a short time and others speak for no end of time. There is one point which has not been introduced in the Debate up to the present. During the War there was a threat to shoot conscientious objectors and some of them were taken to France, but as far as I know, there was no actual shooting in those cases. I know of one man who was brought to the point of being shot, but the situation was saved and the man was not shot. If the Government and those who believe in war, feel that public opinion would not support them in shooting conscientious objectors, then I submit that they are not entitled to shoot the man who has been driven into the Army by compulsion and who finds that he is not able for the task. That is a logical position. [Interruption.] Of course men did not want to go into the War—naturally—and a Debate like this ought to emphasise in the public mind the necessity for safeguarding ourselves by being out-and-out opponents of war in all circumstances.

Question put, "That those words be there added."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 219; Noes, 135.

Birkett, W. Norman
Hore-Belisha, Leslie
Picton-Turbervill, Edith


Blindell, James
Horrabin, J. F.
Price, M. P.


Bowen, J. W.
Hudson, James H. (Huddersfield)
Pybus, Percy John


Broad, Francis Alfred
Isaacs, George
Qu[...]bell, D. F. K.


Brockway, A. Fenner
Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)
Raynes, W. R.


Bromfield, William John,
William (Rhondda, West)
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)


Bromley, J.
Johnston, Thomas
Riley, Ben (Dewsbury)


Brooke, W.
Jones, Rt. Hon. Le[...]f (Camborne)
Romeril, H. G.


Brown, C. W. E. (Notts. Mansfield)
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Rosbotham, D. S. T


Brown, Ernest (Leith)
Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)
Rawson, Guy


Brown, Rt. Hon. J. (South Ayrshire)
Jowett, Rt. Hon. F. W.
Salter, Dr. Alfred


Brown, W. J. (Wolverhampton, West)
Kelly, W. T.
Sanders, W. S.


Burgess, F. G.
Kennedy, Thomas
Sandham, E.


Ca[...]ne, Derwent Hall-
Kenworthy, Lt.-Com. Hon. Joseph M.
Sawyer, G. F.


Carter, W. (St. Pancras, S. W.)
Kinley, J.
Scrymgeour, E.


Charleton, H. C.
Lang, Gordon
Scurr, John


Cluse, W. S.
Lathan, G.
Shepherd, Arthur Lewis


Cocks, Frederick
Seymour Law, A. (Rossendale)
Sherwood, G. H.


Compton, Joseph
Lawrie, Hugh Hartley (Stalybridge)
Shield, George William


Daggar, George
Lawther, W. (Barnard Castle)
Shillaker, J. F.


Dallas, George
Leach, W.
Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)


Dalton, Hugh
Lee, Frank (Derby, N. E.)
Simmons, C. J.


Denman, Hon. R. D.
Lee, Jennie (Lanark, Northern)
Sinkinson, George


Dickson, T.
Lewis, T. (Southampton)
Smith, Alfred (Sunderland)


Duncan, Charles
Lindley, Fred W.
Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)


Ede, James Chuter
Logan, David Gilbert
Smith, Frank (Nuneaton)


Edge, Sir William
Longden, F.
Smith, H. S. Lees (Keighley)


Edmunds, J. E.
Lunn, William
Smith, Rennie (Penistone)


Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)
Macdonald, Gordon (Ince)
Smith, Tom (Pontefract)


Edwards, E. (Morpeth)
MacDonald, Malcolm (Bassetlaw)
Smith, W. R. (Norwich)


Egan, W. H.
McElwee, A.
Snowden, Thomas Accrington)


Elmley, Viscount
McEntee, V. L.
Sorensen, R.


Foot, Isaac
McKinlay, A.
Stamford, Thomas W.


Forgan, Dr. Robert
MacNeill-Weir. L.
Strachey. E. J. St. Loe


Freeman, Peter
McShane, John James
Strauss, G. R.


Gardner, B. W. (West Ham, Upton)
Mander, Geoffrey le M.
Sullivan, J.


George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)
Marcus, M.
Sutton, J. E.


Gibbins, Joseph
Marley, J.
Taylor, R. A. (Lincoln)


Gibson, H. M. (Lancs, Mossley)
Marshall, Fred
Taylor, W. B. (Norfolk, S. W.)


Gill, T. H.
Mathers, George
Tinker, John Joseph


Glassey, A. E.
Matters, L. W.
Toole, Joseph


Gossling, A. G.
Messer, Fred
Tout, W. J.


Gould, F.
Middleton, G.
Townend, A. E.


Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)
Mills, J. E.
Turner, B.


Granville, E.
Milner, Major J.
Viant, S. P.


Gray, Milner
Morgan, Dr. H. B.
Wallace, H. W.


Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)
Morley, Ralph
Watkins, F. C.


Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro' W.)
Morrison, Robert C. (Tottenham, N.)
Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)


Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)
Mort, D. L.
Watts-Morgan, Li.-Col. D. (Rhondda)


Groves, Thomas E.
Moses, J. J. H.
Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. Josiah


Grundy, Thomas W.
Mosley, Lady C. (Stoke-on-Trent)
Wellock, Wilfred


Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Mosley, Sir Oswald (Smethwick)
Welsh, James (Paisley)


Hall, Capt. W. P. (Portsmouth, C.)
Muff, G.
Welsh, James C. (Coatbridge)


Hamilton, Mary Agnes (Blackburn)
Muggeridge, H. T.
West, F. R.


Hammersley, S. S.
Murnin, Hugh
White, H. G


Hard[...]e, George D.
Nathan, Major H. L.
Whiteley, Wilfrid (Birm., Ladywood)


Harris, Percy A.
Naylor, T. E.
Whiteley, William (Blaydon)


Hartshorn. Rt. Hon. Vernon
Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)
Wilkinson, Ellen C.


Hastings, Dr. Somerville
Noel Baker, P. J.
Williams, David (Swansea, East)


Haycock, A. W.
Oliver, George Harold (Ilkeston)
Williams Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)


Hayday, Arthur
Oliver, P. M. (Man., Blackley)
Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)


Hayes, John Henry
Owen, H. F. (Hereford)
Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)


Henderson, Arthur, junr. (Cardiff, S.)
Palin, John Henry
Wilson R. J. (Jarrow)


Henderson, W. W. (Middx., Enfield)
Paling, Wilfrid
Winterton. G. E. (Leicester,Loughb'gh)


Herriotts, J.
Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)
Wise, E. F.


Hirst, G. H. (York W. R. Wentworth)
Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)
Young, R. S. (Islington. North)


Hoffman, P. C.
Peters, Dr. Sidney John



Hollins, A.
Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Hopkin, Daniel
Phillips, Dr. Marion
Mr.Thurtle and Mr. Oliver




Baldwin.




NOES.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Boyce, H. L.
Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer


Albery, Irving James
Bracken, B.
Cockerill, Brig.-General Sir George


Allen, Lt.-Col. Sir William (Armagh)
Brass, Captain Sir William
Colfox, Major William Philip


Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W.
Briscoe, Richard George
Collins, Sir Godfrey (Greenock)


Astor, Maj. Hn. John J. (Kent, Dover)
Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'l'd., Hexham)
Courtauld, Major J. S.


Atkinson, C.
Brown, Brig.-Gen.H. C.(Berks, Newb'y)
Courthope, Colonel Sir G. L.


Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.
Bullock, Captain Malcolm
Crichton-Stuart, Lord C.


Beaumont, M. W.
Butler, R. A.
Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.


Benn, Rt. Hon. Wedgwood
Carver, Major W. H.
Crookshank. Capt. H. C.


Bevan, S. J. (Holborn)
Castle Stewart, Earl of
Croom-Johnson, R. P.


Birchall, Major Sir John Dearman
Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)
Culverwell, C. T.(Bristol, West)


Bourne, Captain Robert Croft
Christie, J. A.
Da[...]keith, Earl of




Da[...]rymp[...]e-White, Lt.-Col. Sir Godfrey
King, Commodore Rt. Hon. Henry D.
Salmon, Major I.


Davidson, Major-General
Sir J. H. Lamb, Sir J. Q.
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)


Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset,Yeovil)
Lambert, Rt. Hon. George (S. Molton)
Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)


Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.)
Lane Fox, Col. Rt. Hon.
George R. Sandeman, Sir N. Stewart


Duckworth, G. A. V.
Leighton, Major B. E. P.
Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)


Dudgeon, Major C. R.
Lewis, Oswald (Colchester)
Shepperson, Sir Ernest Whittome


Dugdale, Capt. T. L.
Llewellin, Major J. J.
Skelton, A. N.


Edmondson, Major A. J.
Long, Major Eric
Smith, Louis W. (Sheffield, Hallam)


Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s. M.)
MacRobert, Rt. Hon. Alexander M.
Smith, R. W. (Aberd'n amp; Kinc'dine, C.)


Everard, W. Lindsay
Makins, Brigadier-General E.
Smith-Carington, Neville W.


Ferguson, Sir John
Margesson, Captain H. D.
Smithers, Waldron


Fielden, E. B.
Marjoribanks, E. C.
Southby, Commander A. R. J.


Fison, F. G. Clavering
Merriman, Sir F. Boyd
Spender-Clay, Colonel H.


Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.
Mond, Hon. Henry
Stanley, Lord (Fylde)


Ganzon[...], Sir John
Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. Sir B.
Stanley, Maj. Hon. O. (W'morland)


Gibson, C. G. (Pudsey amp; Otley)
Moore, Sir Newton J. (Richmond)
Steel-Maitland, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur


Glyn, Major R. G. C.
Morrison, W. S. (Glos., Cirencester)
Stewart, W. J. (Belfast, South)


Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)
Muirhead, A. J.
Thomson, Sir F.


Greene, W. P. Crawford
O'Neill, Sir H.
Titchfield, Major the Marquess of


Grenfell, Edward C. (City of London)
Peake, Capt. Osbert
Todd, Capt. A. J.


Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John
Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement


Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.
Power, Sir John Cecil
Turton, Robert Hugh


Gunston, Captain D. W.
Pownall, Sir Assheton
Ward, Lleut.-Col. Sir A. Lambert


Hartington, Marquess of
Ramsay, T. B. Wilson
Warrender, Sir Victor


Hallam, Henry C.
Ramsbotham, H.
Waterhouse, Captain Charles


Henderson, Capt. R. R.(Oxf'd, Henley)
Remer, John R.
Wayland, Sir William A.


Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel
Arthur P. Reynolds, Col. Sir James
Wells, Sydney R.


Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J.
Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y)
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George


Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G.
Roberts, Sir Samuel (Ecclesall)
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Howard-Bury, Colonel C. K.
Rodd, Rt. Hon. Sir James Rennell
Wolmer, Rt. Hon. Viscount


Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)
Ross, Major Ronald D.
Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.


Hutchison,
Maj.-Gen. Sir R.
Ruggles-Brise, Lieut.-Colonel E. A.


Iveagh, Countess of
Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Kindersley, Major G. M.
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)
Sir George Penny and Captain




Euan Wallace.

Clause as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 6 (Amendment of Army Act, S. 91), 7 (Amendment of Army Act, S. 145), 8 (Application of Army Act in relation to Aden) and 9 (Application to Air Force) ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Orders of the Day — FIRST SCHEDULE.— [Prices in Respect of Billeting.]

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this be the First Schedule to the Bill."

Lieut.-Colonel HENEAGE: I wish to ask a question of the Secretary of State as to whether there is any difference in the prices in respect of billeting. Does he not think that these charges are quite inadequate in view of the present high prices, and that it imposes hardship on innkeepers, especially on the roads to Aldershot?

Mr. SHINWELL: There is to be no change in the forthcoming year. In the opinion of those responsible the rates are reasonable. It must be borne in mind that very few men are being billeted in this way, and therefore there is no cause for apprehension.

Sir NEWTON MOORE: Does the hon. Gentleman consider 8d. a day a fair and reasonable allowance?

Mr. SHINWELL: It entirely depends on the circumstances, and that depends on the amount and variety of the food provided.

Lieut.-Colonel HENEAGE: It is quite possible that, in order to stimulate recruiting, it may he necessary to send troops on recruiting marches; that has always been the custom for many centuries, and I hope that the Secretary of State will bear in mind that these rates are not satisfactory as they stand at present, and are really unfair.

Mr. SHAW: I will bear in mind everything that is said, and will have it examined, but I cannot give any promise to vary a custom that has obtained so long, and has proved to be so satisfactory.

Major COLFOX: In view of the fact that the cost-of-living is by no means stationary, and is likely to rise appreciably in the near future on account of the lamentable fact that the Socialist party are now in office, surely there should be some provision for these rates to be put on some kind of sliding scale, in accordance with the cost of living. I should like to ask the Secretary of State for War two questions. Would he like to live on 8d. a day? I take it that even his frugal appetite would hardly be
likely to be satisfied with this small allowance. On 8d. a day, however, he might save a little on the cost of his clothing, but would he really like to live on that amount? If he happened to have troops billeted at his house, could he provide their food, board and lodging at that figure?
Does he think that he would be making any profit for himself or that it would even cover the cost? If any troops were fortunate enough to be billeted at his house I know that he would treat them with ample hospitality, but that, after all, is hardly business, and it could not be expected of a poor man who is not a plutocratic super taxpayer such as we know the right hon. Gentleman to be.
The billeting scales are not only all too small but based on a wrong principle, because if ever it were right and proper that scales of pay should be based on the cost of living surely it would be right and proper in this case. Then there is the candle allowance. Does he think the sum allowed for candles is really adequate and what happens in a house where candles are not the ordinary form of illumination? It is not a princely allowance with which to cover the cost of electric or other light. These allowances arouse a good deal of comment and I ask the right hon. Gentleman to give them his close personal attention.

The CHAIRMAN: Order! I can hear the dropping of coins in the House. That is quite out of order.

Major COLFOX: I do not mind if the hon. Gentleman opposite who is jingling his coins is doing it as an indication that he shares my view that these paltry allowances ought to be increased, or at least that the scale should be reorganised. Seriously, I ask the right hon. Gentleman to go into this question with his expert advisers, and if he cannot give me an answer straight off the reel perhaps I might have a reply on the Report stage.

Mr. SHAW: I can give the hon. and gallant Member an answer now. I can assure him that all his suggestions will meet with consideration.

The CHAIRMAN: Order! The hon. Member at the end of the Chamber who is standing should find a seat.

Mr. EVERARD: Seeing the very large sum paid for unemployment, is the Secretary for War not able to increase the allowances in this Schedule! I think the right hon. Gentleman who sits as the Socialist Minister for War cannot honestly believe he can come down to my constituency or any other constituency, and tell them that 8d. a day is sufficient.

Mr. CECIL WILSON: May I ask if 8d. a day is mentioned here?

The CHAIRMAN: The hon. Gentleman is referring to billeting.

Mr. EVERARD: If the hon. Gentleman was paying any attention to what I was saying he would know that I was explaining to the Committee, as he will find, if he will look at the First Schedule on page 8 of the Army and Air Force (Annual) Bill [20 George 5] that the following is set out.


Lodging and attendance for soldier where meals furnished.
Tenpence a night for the first soldier and eightpence a night for each additional soldier.


I think there is no question in dispute about that. It may be that I was slightly in error in suggesting that they got 8d. only. The point I was endeavouring to make was that, in spite of the fact that the cost of living has gone up—[Interruption]—the right hon. Gentleman comes here in charge of the War Office in a Labour Government and is doing nothing to assist the billeting of the ordinary private soldier. I would be surprised if he came to my Division, or any other Division in the country, and told the people exactly what the Labour party are doing in that respect. I am also rather surprised that nothing is being done about the ration for horses:


Stable room and ten pounds of oats, 12 pounds of hay, and eight pounds of straw a day for each horse.
Two shillings and threepence a day.


This is a problem which particularly affects my Division of Melton Mowbray, where not only do we produce this particular ration in this schedule, but where also we have in the Urban District of Melton itself one of the two remount stations in this country. Therefore, I do know something about this question of the ration. I am extremely surprised that the Labour Government are doing
nothing at all other than allowing this 2s. 3d. a day for this particular service. Of the rations used for this service a very large percentage is grown in the Midland counties. A certain amount may come from the Eastern Counties. The Government use English rations for this service. I will give them that credit. This particular allowance ought to be increased so that my constituency may gain a little bit of advantage from it.. Now we come to the next item in the Schedule:—
Lodging and attendance for officer. Three shillings a night.
I would like to know what is included in that. I am sorry to see that the Secretary of State for War has left the House. I would have thought that having got on so quickly with the business he would have remained at his post until the end. Now the death penalty has been done away with, he is the first to take advantage of that fact. I am, however, sure that the Financial Secretary will be able to deal with the point I mentioned. Does this include ration allowance or is it just an ordinary bed in a particular cottage? I am very glad the Secretary for War has come back to the House. I withdraw what I said about his being the first to leave his post after the last Vote of the Committee. I realise now that he is ready to answer my question. To what does this 3s. actually refer? Does it refer just to a bed for the night or does it give the officer some sort of allowance for food as well? These are the only points that I can raise on this schedule. There are several points which I wish to raise on the Second Schedule. I would be obliged if the right hon. Gentleman would give me an answer to some of these important questions.

Mr. SIMMONS: We have these experts on the other side of the House who get up and, airing their knowledge of the Army Annual Bill, ask whether "lodging and attendance" for officers includes meals. If they had dusted their eyes they would have seen:
Note.—An officer shall pay for his food.
We have had from the same hon. Members the statement that the soldier was kept for 8d. a day. If they had looked down the Schedule and cared to read it, they would have found that
breakfast, dinner and supper are separate items.

Question, "That this be the First Schedule to the Bill," put, and agreed to.

Orders of the Day — SECOND SCHEDULE.—(Special Modifications to be made in Part II of this Act for the Purposes of its Application to the Air Force Act) agreed to.

Bill reported; as amended, to be considered upon Monday next, and to be printed.—[Bill 160.]

Orders of the Day — ECCLESIASTICAL COMMISSIONERS (PENSIONS OF CHURCH ESTATES COMMISSIONERS) MEASURE, 1930.

Mr. G. MIDDLETON: I beg to move,
That, in accordance with the Church of England Assembly (Powers) Act, 1919, this House do direct that the Ecclesiastical Commissioners (Pensions of Church Estates Commissioners) Measure, 1930, be presented to His Majesty for Royal Assent.
In view of the late hour of the night, I hope that Members will forgive me if I do not enter into any long explanation. The object of this Measure is to remedy an omission that was made when the Act of Parliament was passed which laid down the salary for the post of Church Estates Commissioners. At the time, it was certainly not foreseen that the question of a pension must arise. The immediate cause of this Bill is the necessity of making provision for the First Church Estates Commissioner, Sir Lewis Dibdin, who has been in that high office for at least 25 years, and who has given great public and eminent service to the Church as Ecclesiastical Commissioner. The salary which was laid down many years ago has not only been entirely out of scale with the duties that the Commissioners are called upon to perform, but makes no provision for their requirements in case of old age, and I feel sure that as this Measure has passed the Church Assembly and has come here to get the authority of Parliament the House will give its assent. No public money is involved. This pension will not come out of the purse of the State, but will be provided for out of the funds of the Commissioners themselves, although Parliamentary sanction is necessary.
I see that in the report of the Ecclesiastical Committee a reference is made to the fact that no amount of pension is laid down, and it is suggested that it would have been wise to have fixed some specified proportion of the salary. It is the intention of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners to make it a definite and specified amount, although the exact proportion has not yet been settled, but it will be in the nature of two-thirds or possibly three-fourths of the salary, plus the cost-of-living bonus which has been added since there has been such a bonus. I, therefore, ask the House to pass this Measure.

Sir JOHN BIRCHALL: I beg to second the Motion.

Mr. EDE: I think it is a matter for regret that the hon. Member who moved this Motion was not in a position to give the House an exact statement as to what these pensions are to be. While it is true that no public money, as it is technically defined, is concerned in this matter, there are many towns, including that which I have the honour to represent, of which these Commissioners are the ground landlords. My own constituency has been owned for many years by the Bishops of Durham who have been succeeded in title by these Ecclesiastical Commissioners, and we have suffered many hardships because of the fact that we have been held in fee by these people. Four or five hundred years ago a Bishop of Durham directed that the men of Shields should keep no dogs because they disturbed the Bishop's rabbit warren; and, to come to modern times, we have been very effectively held to ransom by the Ecclesiastical Commissioners. We feel, therefore, that they ought not to be given carte blanche to establish a pension scheme which the mover cannot get nearer than two-thirds or three-fourths of the salary. I should have thought that the hon. Gentleman would have been in a position to give an assurance that the pensions would be on the same basis as those usually paid in the Civil Service. To all intents and purposes those officers whom it is now proposed to pension are members of the Civil Service. Their positions are quite analogous, and to bring down a Measure like this to the House and ask us to
give our consent is really not treating the House in proper respect.
I am sure that these highly paid officers have salaries fixed on a higher scale than those of Members of this House and are better paid than my hon. Friend for his share in their work. They were probably fixed at their present figure bearing in mind the fact that no pension attaches to them and had pension rights attached to them the probability is that they would have been fixed at a much lower figure. The Church Assembly should be made to understand that these Measures, when submitted to this House, should be the sort of measures that a ministerial department would submit to us if they were making a similar proposition. I do not think it is right that this matter should go through without protest, especially from the constituencies from where the great revenues of these commissioners are drawn, where for the past eight or nine years very severe depression has been suffered, and where, so far as I can see, the Ecclesiastical Commissioners have never shown that sympathy for the present condition of the place that their connection with the Church might have entitled us to expect.

Mr. MANDER: I desire to say a few words about the Motion, because it is well understood that it is necessary for the House to satisfy itself that the Measure brought forward is in the national interest. We have to look at it quite apart from anything that the Ecclesiastical Committee may say. We have to satisfy ourselves from careful consideration of the Measure that it ought to go forward and be passed. I would call attention to a passage in the Report of the Ecclesiastical Committee in which they say that it would have been more in accordance with the general practice of Parliament if the maximum amount of pension had been fixed at some specific amount of the salary at the date of the retirement. I hope the hon. Member will be able to indicate before the Debate concludes the actual sum which is going to be proposed by way of pension. I do not think it is at all right that a Measure of this sort should be brought forward in the vague general terms that it has been. I hope the hon. Member will be able to give us some assurance that the Report of the Ecclesiastical Committee will be taken into account by the Church Assembly and
that the practice of Parliament will be observed in future in Measures brought here, and that the exact maximum amount of the pension will be indicated. I hope the hon. Member will be able to state that now, because otherwise some step might be taken for the adjournment of the Debate.

Dr. PETERS: I support my hon. Frend. I strongly object to these measures being brought forward at this time and in this manner. For that reason, I beg to call attention to the fact that there are not 40 members in the House.

Notice taken that 40 Members were not present; House counted; and 40 Members being present—

Dr. PETERS: I rise to protest once again against these Measures coming forward in this way. We have heard very little or nothing about this particular Measure from the proposer, and I think the report of the Ecclesiastical Committee itself shows that this matter ought to have more attention from the House. In the Measure it is proposed that the amount of the pension is to be determined by the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, and no limitation is fixed. It would have been mare in accordance with the general practice of Parliament that the maximum amount of the pension should be fixed at some specific proportion of the salary at the date of the retirement. I do urge that consideration on the mover and that we should have further information before we pass this Measure.

Mr. MIDDLETON: I appreciate the point of view put by the last speaker, and there is no doubt that it was only from consideration for the members at

Division No. 253.]
AYES.
[12.59 a.m.


Arnott, John
Gibbins, Joseph
Llewellin, Major J. J


Beaumont, M. W.
Gibson, H. M. (Lanes, Mossley)
Longden, F.


Bellamy, Albert
Glassey, A. E.
MacDonald, Malcolm (Bassetlaw)


Bennett, William (Battersea, South)
Gossling, A. G.
McElwee, A.


Bevan, Aneurin (Ebbw Vale)
Gray, Milner
McShane, John James


Bourne, Captain Robert Croft
Greene, W. P. Crawford
Marshall, Fred


Bowen, J. W.
Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A. (Colne)
Mathers, George


Brooke, W.
Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)
Milner, Major J.


Burgess, F. G.
Gunston, Captain D. W.
Morrison, W. S. (Glos., Cirencester)


Church, Major A. G.
Hamilton, Mary Agnes (Blackburn)
Moses, J. J. H.


Cocks, Frederick Seymour
Haycock, A. W.
Muggeridge, H. T.


Compton, Joseph
Hayes, John Henry
Oliver, P. M. (Man., Blackley)


Courthope, Colonel Sir G. L.
Henderson, Capt. R. R.(Oxf'd, Henley)
Parkinson, John Allen(Wigan)


Daggar, George
Hollins, A.
Phillips, Dr. Marion


Dalton, Hugh
Jowett, Rt. Hon. F. W.
Ruggles-Brise, Lieut.-Colonel E. A.


Edmunds, J. E.
Kennedy, Thomas
Sanders, W. S.


Edwards, C.(Monmouth, Bedwellty)
Lang, Gordon
Sawyer, G. F.


Elmley, Viscount
Lawrie, Hugh Hartley (Stalybridge)
Shillaker, J. F.


Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.
Leach, W.
Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)

this late hour that I refrained from saying more. It is not my fault or that of the Church Assembly that the Measures had to be taken at this late hour. With regard to the criticism of my hon. Friend the Member of South Shields (Mr. Ede), I must demur from his description of the Church Estates Commissioners as being analogous to civil servants. The duties and the office of the First Estates Commissioner are more analogous to those of one of His Majesty's judges. They are bound to be men appointed late in life. There is no possibility of earning pensions in the ordinary way like a, civil servant. The right way to do it—like the case of the judge—is to pension a man in a manner that will enable him to live in that state of life to which he was accustomed while in office. With regard to the amount, it is unfortunate that the amount is not stated in the Measure. So far as I can give any assurance, the pensions will be £1,000. That is the figure in the mind of the people who proposed this, and it will represent something like two-thirds or three-quarters of the salary plus the cost-of-living bonus. In my view, it is a very modest figure. I should have liked to have seen the Ecclesiastical Commissioners proposing a figure equal to the full salary and bonus. But that would be an unfortunate precedent perhaps, and the figure is likely to be what I have stated. I hope the House will now give us this Measure.

Mr. MANDER: rose—

Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member has already spoken once.
Question put.

The House divided: Ayes, 67; Noes, 3.

Simmons, C. J.
Taylor, W. B. (Norfolk, S.W.)



Smith, Alfred (Sunderland)
Toole, Joseph
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Smith, Frank (Nuneaton)
Tout, W. J.
Mr. Middleton and Major Sir John


Smith, W. R. (Norwich)
Wallace, H. W.
Birchall.


Smithers, Waldron
Watkins, F. C.





NOES.


Kelly, W. T.
Young, R. S. (Islington, North)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES—


Morgan, Dr. H. B.

Mr. Ede and Mr. Scrymgeour.

Resolved,
That, in accordance with the Church of England Assembly (Powers) Act, 1919, this House do direct that the Ecclesiastical Commissioners (Pensions of Church Estates Commissioners) Measure, 1930, be presented to His Majesty for Royal Assent.

The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.

It being after half-past Eleven of the clock upon Thursday evening, Mr. SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned at six minutes after One o'Clock.